Scary! When a judge rules against a newspaper’s right to print an opinion story!

Judge Orders Mississippi Newspaper to Remove Editorial, Alarming Press Advocates

The owner of The Clarksdale Press Register said he planned to challenge a judge’s order against an editorial that criticized city officials.

A brick building with a black-and-white sign saying “Press Register.”
“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” 
Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register in Clarksdale, Miss., said of a judge’s order.

By Michael Levenson {{<— New York Times reporter}}

Feb. 19, 2025  5:54 p.m. ET

A Mississippi judge on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order requested by the city of Clarksdale requiring a local newspaper to remove a critical editorial from its website, a move that alarmed press advocates.

By Wednesday, the newspaper, The Clarksdale Press Register, had removed the editorial from its website. But Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register, said he planned to challenge the judge’s order at a hearing next week.

“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Mr. Emmerich said in an interview, adding that the judge had targeted “an editorial that is pretty plain vanilla, criticizing the City Council for not sending out the approporate notices.”

The Press Register, which dates to 1865 and serves about 7,750 readers, published the editorial on its website on Feb. 8 under the headline, “Secrecy, deception erode public trust.”

The editorial criticized officials in Clarksdale, a city of about 14,000 residents near the Arkansas border, for what it said was their failure to notify the news media before they held a special meeting on Feb. 4, where they approved a resolution asking the Mississippi Legislature to impose a 2 percent tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

“This newspaper was never notified,” the editorial read. “We know of no other media organization that was notified.”

The editorial also questioned city officials’ interest in the resolution.

“Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kickback from the community?” it asked. “Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea — at public expense.”

Clarksdale’s Board of Mayor and Commissioners voted on Feb. 13 to sue the newspaper for libel, saying the city clerk had created a public notice for the Feb. 4 board meeting but forgot to email a copy of it to Floyd Ingram, the editor and publisher of The Press Register, as she usually does.

After the meeting, Mr. Ingram went to the clerk’s office, where the clerk apologized for not sending him the notice and gave him a copy of it and the resolution that had been approved, city officials said.

In their lawsuit against The Press Register, city officials said that efforts by the mayor, Chuck Espy, to lobby for the tax proposal in Jackson, the state capital, had been “chilled and hindered due to the libelous assertions and statements by Mr. Ingram.”

On Tuesday, Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Miss., granted the city’s request for a temporary restraining order and told the newspaper to remove the editorial from its “online portals” and to make it inaccessible to the public.

“The injury in this case is defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle,” Judge Martin wrote.

Mr. Ingram referred questions on Wednesday to Emmerich Newspapers. Mr. Emmerich said the editorial was clearly free speech protected by the Constitution.

“I don’t know how they can argue that a critical editorial is interfering with their businesses in a country that has a First Amendment that protects our right to criticize the government,” he said. “That’s the very idea of what an editorial in a newspaper does.”

The city’s lawsuit was part of what Mr. Emmerich described as an ongoing feud between The Press Register and Mr. Espy. He said that the newspaper had irked the mayor and other officials by reporting on their increased compensation and other issues and that “they’ve been at us ever since.”

Mr. Espy, a Democrat, said that the increased compensation had “nothing do with” the city’s lawsuit against the newspaper and “its malicious lies.” He said the city had threatened to sue the newspaper in the past, forcing it to retract an article.

“The only thing we’re asking for in city government is to simply write the truth, good or bad,” Mr. Espy said. “And I’m very thankful that the judge agreed to impose a T.R.O. against a rogue newspaper that insisted on telling lies against the municipality.”

Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports free speech, criticized the city’s lawsuit, writing on social media that it was “wildly unconstitutional.”

He said that governments “can’t sue for libel” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.

“Free-speech threats come from all corners of society, whether it’s the president of the United States or a mayor, and they come from all political parties,” Mr. Steinbaugh said in an interview on Wednesday. He said that once “we start eroding those rights, all other rights are threatened.”

Layne Bruce, executive director of the Mississippi Press Association, said he supported The Press Register’s right to publish the editorial and its effort to challenge the judge’s order.

“This is a rather astounding order,” he said, “and we feel it’s egregious and chilling and it clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

OPINION — Why Give Absurdities Ink & Prominence?

Elon Musk owns a communications company (and so much more), and if he wants to promote an idea, surely he is free to do so. That’s the epitome of free speech…. Unchecked, unregulated, and uncensored.

And when he suggests that a media company’s employees deserve a “long prison sentence” for a story that he disagrees with, again, he is free to shout that from his platform and bask in the glow of his X echo chamber, maganified by the Prince of Mar-a-Lago.

Musk has long criticized CBS for a Kamala Harris interview during the November election. Most recently, following a critical story about Musk’s closure of USAID, the DOGE boss wrote, “60 Minutes are the biggest liars in the world! They engaged in deliberate deception to interfere with the last election. They deserve a long prison sentence.”

Seriously… “a long prison sentence” for? What would be the legal charge? What is the offense? What is the rationale, other than perhaps currying favor with prominent politicians? Evidently, Musk didn’t learn about the American value of free speech in his South African school system.

While Musk can and should be allowed to say anything, why does other media give him any credence by repeating his nonsensical mutterings?

Deciding what to include on any media platform is the province of editors who, one hopes, make their decisions based on what is newsworthy, the prominence of the person speaking, and the likelihood that what’s said will be impactful.

On any responsible calculus, in my nearly 50-year experience in media, I believe even repeating silly ideas or promoting individuals who are so out of touch with inherent American values is, in itself, irresponsible.

MAGAnifying the News

Donald J. Trump to Anchor Nightly News Program MAGAnifying What Americans Need to Know

The White House Office of Publicity (WHOP) will soon announce the production and distribution of the Evening News with Donald J. Trump, (ENDJT), a 7-night-a-week strip show featuring America’s favorite President, Donald J. Trump, presenting the day’s news.

Mr. Trump will be both the Anchor and Managing Editor of the program that, like its closest model время (Vreyma), will run at varying lengths as determined by Mr. Trump in his personal assessment of the most important news of his administration.

Appearing as the most trusted man in America and the most successful media personality ever in his own right, Donald Trump delivering the news personally, and with his customary authenticity and empathy, is following in the footsteps of other iconic politicians whose distinctive voices penetrated deeply into the homes and lives of Americans at other times in our history. In eras past, the Little Flower and King Franklin informed, entertained, and delighted Americans with their radio programs providing humor, comfort, and reassurance during previous dark days in our history.

The Evening News with Donald J. Trump will MAGAnify the news of the day in a carefully curated program to explain and educate Americans about the important accomplishments of this administration. Even before its debut, it is already acclaimed as a WHOPping success and model for successive administrations.

There will be days when Mr. Trump will simultaneously appear as the nation’s cheerleader, advocate, blame assessor, and even the consoler-in-chief. When necessary, he will FIRE on-camera those who have failed their assignments (real or perceived) in his administration. When there is a gap in real news but still plenty of room for fake news, alternative facts, and speculation, audiences can count on the ENDJT to fill any silence with entertaining asides, especially whenever he goes off TelePrompTer, offering insights and opinions which are second to none.

Few personalities are more suited to presenting the complex News of The Day, much less giving commentary and perspective.

Few men have the clout of Mr. Trump, whose personal love for and friendship with world leaders, including Kim Jong Un, Bibi Netanyahu, Viktor Orbán, and ‘Uncle Vlad’ Putin, all of whom have repeatedly expressed such admiration for this American President. It’s expected that world leaders will clamor to take President Trump’s perfect phone calls live, responding jovially, and following his extemporaneous instructions for their domestic policies.

Domestically, the men and women of the Republican Party, from cabinet secretaries to congressmen (no longer woke-gender-corrected to include congresswomen) and even governors, who demonstrate over-the-top fealty to their President, will appear nightly to obsequiously offer eerie prayer and praise.

Nightly features on the faults and foibles of previous Democratic administrations, including Barack Hussein, Crooked Hillary, and Sleepy Joe, among so many others in state and local governments, will be highlighted.

Weather reports will be presented with Sharpie pens. Governor of Canada, and its former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, will report on lake-effect snowstorms and the Arctic Express.

Traffic will be reported by an avatar looking suspiciously like a Pete Buttigieg piñata.

Business news will feature real estate, hotel, and hospitality items.

Segments on cryptocurrency will feature reports from the President’s son, Barron.

A nightly special segment for hunting enthusiasts will tabulate the number of immigrant ICE roundups and deportations, presented using 3D colored graphics for both nationality and racial identification, and enabling audiences to see accomplishments of the administration’s #1 priority.

Also – in the wide world of sports and especially on multiple weekends each month, golf will delight duffers watching the President report from his links. Special offer coupons to selected courses owned by the Trump organization will be auctioned live to raise money for green maintenance.

Dr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who has received a medical doctorate from Trump University and was awarded by Presidential Order) will take viewer call-ins on vaccines as well as a wide range of medical topics several nights each week. His segment will be sponsored by major pharmaceutical companies.

Style, beauty, and entertainment, as determined solely by Mr. Trump on the attractiveness of featured individuals (as compared to himself) and the measure of their anatomies, will delight and rivet audiences with their comparisons.

Social media posts will include specially created segments using the subscription model of OnlyFans.

The Evening News with Donald J. Trump may be expected to debut soon on selected broadcast and streaming platforms.

Tiffany Network At Risk of Losing Its Luster

It is being reported that CBS News is entering negotiations with the F.C.C. because a settlement with the Trump administration is politically expedient.

Expedient for the parent organization, Paramount? Apparently.

As reported in the NY Times, “But in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, has begun settlement discussions with representatives of Mr. Trump, according to several people with knowledge of the talks. Many executives at Paramount believe that settling the suit could help pave the way for the F.C.C. to approve Paramount’s planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company.”

Expedient also to avoiding any negative relations or a loss of access with the Trump White House? Perhaps true, but most likely a calculated decision based on fear of retribution from the press office.

The proposed settlement stems from a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump over allegations of misleading editing in a CBS News 60 Minutes story from October 7, 2024.

Business settlements and political decisions based on real or imagined ramifications are one thing. But it is quite another for a major broadcaster to cave so willingly and early in the legal process. More alarming to veteran news people is the apparent surrender and kow tow to a personality.

If a story has been properly produced, vetted by experienced and senior editors, and scrubbed for accuracy, then the network should stand by the work. Stand by your reporters and editorial team. One presumes the experienced team at CBS 60 Minutes, the premier news magazine show on CBS, did their jobs properly and professionally. It would be a sad thing for risk-averse managers at the television network to scuttle the work and settle for the expedience of a new business deal.

Is Success for An Audience of One Enough?

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt most likely impressed her most important audience, President Donald Trump, with her maiden appearance at the White House podium yesterday.

She was feisty, combative, unflappable, and stayed on point to the party line.
She bridged reporter’s questions to her talking points, regardless of whether those answers were either responses to the questions asked or satisfactory to the reporters at all. She pivoted when she deemed it necessary. She structured her responses using the boasts and bravado of her boss.

But was she as effective beyond the West Wing?

Her tonality was sharp. Her posture & body language are tight; some might say combative. Like it or not, those physical characteristics can set a negative tone for the relationship between the President and the press corps.

My question: is that the best way to begin? Is setting a tough tone even necessary? Certainly, the job of press secretary is akin to being a circus ringmaster where the lions, and tigers and bears have been let loose simultaneously. But are a whip and a chair the best tools to wield from arguably the most potent soap box in the world?

For Trump fans who dislike and distrust the ‘fake media,’ she undoubtedly scored high grades for putting and keeping the media hoard in its place. For Trump critics, she prompted recollections of other spokesperson failures, including Sean Spicer.

The press sectary’s job has never been ‘easy’ with a sophisticated press corps that has age, maturity, and usually decades-long experience in covering the nuances of DC politics. Ms. Leavitt is young and a relative newcomer, so it would be natural to expect a learning curve requiring a period of time. I’d suggest that the honeymoon window is open only a sliver and closing quickly.

While she has experience from the campaign, the open question will be how does that translate to prime time and for an audience beyond the President? Or, is she simply cannon fodder for Mr. Trump to carry his water until she has been rung out by a critical, disbelieving, and maybe even hostile audience?

Your thoughts?

President Trump’s Hiraeth

Again and again, Ameican’s are promised a return to a life, a universe, a world of glorious ‘agains.”
But, just when was this: again?

I want someone in the press to ask, when was ‘again’?

When was America strong, again?
Was that in the post-WW2 era when our military and nuclear might were unmatched? Again here certainly can’t be Vietnam… a war from which the President excused himself, and what’s more, we lost.
Was it 1959 when President Eisenhower warned of the unchecked military-industrial complex rampantly growing to unsustainable proportions?

Was when America safe, again?
It certainly couldn’t have been the 1960s and 70s which saw dramatically higher crime spikes. But maybe it was before cameras in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, among other cities showcased poverty and injustice directly into our living rooms, and Black Lives Matter was splashed on downtown DC streets?

Was safe again when people who made us uncomfortable were compelled to hide in the shadows?
Was that the 1950s and 60’s when sexual repression castigated fags, queers, and dykes in even the most polite conversations, if they were recognized at all? Sniggers and condemnations… Shall we return to that? Again?

Was safe before desegregation? Before the Freedom Rides? Before Selma and Montgomery? Before Little Rock? Or Boston even in the 1970s?
Before the riots of the late 1960s which burned American neighborhoods to ash? Before blood was spilled in the streets; when was that again?
Was that when America was safe? Or when white people felt safe?
Is that the ‘again’ to be sought?

When was America at peace, again? Surely not in my 7 decades of life… from Korea to the Iron Curtain, to the Bamboo Curtain, to Vietnam, to the innumerable battles and terror of the Middle East and the armaments provided by the U.S., Kosovo, to civil wars and revolutions (Argentina, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Senegal), to the Iran Contra affair… and what about Afghanistan, Iraq? Kuwait? Wars all – again, and again.

AI calculates, “As of 2024, there are 56 ongoing conflicts worldwide, with 92 countries involved in conflicts outside their borders. This represents the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since World War II, highlighting the continued prevalence of armed conflicts in the modern era.” It calculates today 160,000 active duty military personnel are assigned to foreign posts in 80 countries at 750 bases. Again? Is that safe again?

So when was there peace, ‘again’?

When was America good, again? Was it again before the Poverty Program which lifted the living standard and fed so many impoverished Americans? Was it before a health safety net – perhaps before Medicare? Before LBJ? Certainly, it must have been before the Obama Affordable Care Act, but just when was it healthier, ‘again’?

Was America better before desegregation – in schools, hotels, restaurants, and public transport? Or even baseball? Surely, better must be before DEI – so what are we returning to, ‘again’?

Was America better and stronger in the world when U.S. corporations ran entire governments? When the CIA choose who would rule and who would fall in a coup? When we determined who would be bribed, regardless of the consequences to their citizens, but always to our advantage — think oil prices or bananas… and so much more. When was that ‘again’, Pax America?

And what about some of the poorest of the poor – the American farm worker? Is returning to the era of Harvest of Shame what is meant by again? When prices at the market were at a low because the pickers on American farms were treated as slaves.

Just when was ‘again’?

I am puzzled.

America is not a Norman Rockwell painting – a romanticized distortion of life years ago, a saccharin reminder of a supposedly gentler time that was never completely accurate but has become a political symbol of a supposedly better life then.

Thomas Wolfe wrote you can’t go home again for what was has surely changed and evolved, just as we have individually.

Is ‘again’ really better? Is ‘again’ even realistic?

Where is “again” anything more than a political rallying cry? And for what?

Is your again my again? And are you sure? I’m not.

Mr. Trump’s oft-repeated word ‘again’ is, still, once again, undefined, unasked, and unanswered.

Who in the media will ask, yea demand, and ask, and ask again until he defines his ‘again’… and then we can see if there is a consensus for that destination or if are we just being taken for a ride?

Media Mayhem – The LA fires bring out the best and worst in reporting

This week’s fires in and around Los Angeles resemble an apocalypse.

Families lost loved ones; thousands more lost property accumulated over a lifetime.

The media coverage has been extensive on land and in the air. Anchors have raced from the safety and comfort of New York studios to appear earnestly reporting on the fire line.


Snarky tabloid stories poked at anchors who tailored their Nomex fire retardant suits to appear fitted (more dashing?). In a holocaust, I suppose some news heavyweights think it best to look good while reporting on other’s suffering… before returning to the comfort of 4-star hotels for the night.

As my friend and colleague Bob Sirkin posed in an email today, “I am tired of watching network anchors trying to squeeze out the very last drops of emotion from victims.  How much more do you want to ask the same banal questions to people who are left with nothing?”

The So California fires are a tragedy of unfathomable scope. Of course.

But dare we compare this natural destruction to human-caused misery in Gaza, the Ukraine, and Russia where cities have been leveled, buildings pancaked on residents asleep in their beds, and debris fields stretch for miles and miles – entire communities obliterated back to the stone age?

The media coverage and public interest in these stories has largely waned. Field reporters file stories about a horrific bombing or a gun battle, characterized by the news term “bang-bang.” But the rest of the story – about people…the losses they have sustained is largely sanitized from US media.

It’s absolutely as tragic, but if I may suggest, few if any of these victims likely have Go-Fund-Me pages.

The old bromide that all news is local is true, and the fires in California have greater resonance to fellow Americans than something happening thousands of miles away in a foreign country to people who are not “us.”

I get it.

Soon the fires will be contained. Even this weekend there will be less coverage as audiences over Saturday and Sunday decline and the newspapers shrink their page count. Anchors will return to their studios, where it is less expensive to sustain coverage.

The audience will tell pollsters that they’ve had enough, or feel overwhelmed, or worse yet, that the devastation is all beginning to look the same. And we’ll largely move on.

Newsroom cynics used to keep tally of what scope of devastation warranted network television news interest… hundreds of thousands of victims in a sub-continent typhoon barely earned a mention. Several thousand war casualties in Africa or several hundred killed in a South American earthquake might earn a flicker of acknowledgment. Scores in a domestic tragedy certainly earned a slot in the news window… but then, so too did a 2 car accident in New York’s Times Square so long as it was reported in the New York Post or Times.

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective after all.

PASTEURIZING MEDIA

Countering “media fallout”

{{This was written by my friend, teacher, and colleague Marty Perlmutter and first appeared on his substack today.It is thought provoking, and I felt worth sharing

Marshall McLuhan had a central idea he termed “media fallout.” He knew the only way to avoid the mind-manipulation of media was awareness of how these modes of consciousness envelopment work on our brains. In the absence of awareness, you have media fallout. He explained this to advertising and broadcast executives of the time — half a century ago. He said that he felt a lot like Louis Pasteur in 1860. He was aware of pervasive and invisible forces that caused disease and spread infection. But all around were individuals, doctors along with patients, oblivious to imperceptible but all-too-real microbes that were killing them.

To become conscious of how balkanized, corrupted, disinforming and ever-more-pathetic media are shaping our minds and behaviors requires a quantum leap in awareness of invisible forces. Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox News are the easiest of the “cavorting beasties” (as the inventor of the microscope termed single-cell organisms) to detect, and begin to disinfect. Social media, fragmented attention, cell phone dopamine addiction — these will take more time to elucidate and defang.

Our plight seems more fraught than simply entertaining ourselves to death. As McLuhan taught, what we’re not aware of will have its way with our delicate cerebra. A lot of what we’re dealing with now barely makes it to the cortex. This is the age of the medulla oblongata, the brain stem where fear and rage abide. While we are distracted, addicted, disinformed and terrorized, what hope is there that we’ll grok how this enveloping miasma operates?

Another teaching gives me hope. A peerless penetrator of the loom of passions and persuasions, Friedrich Nietzsche, taught, “Understanding stops action.” When you comprehend how something triggers you, when you grasp the roots of your convictions, there’s no heat, no drive to act. There is only a tranquility that passeth manipulation.

So spread the word: Cavorting beasties are abroad in the land. We cannot see or sense this stuff til we surface the mechanisms by which they reach into us. By slowly becoming aware of how these forces massage our senses, impact our feeling and thinking, we can disabuse ourselves of thralldom and become, truly and at last, free.

Dazzling the eye and luring audiences with more than clickbait

{Principally this post is aimed at my students but the profile of Teddy Banks makes for fascinating reading for all of us who create and post content}.

We appreciate the eye is always drawn to the headline, but do we pay as much attention to the font and appearance as we ought to?
Similarly, how attractive and eye-catching are our lower thirds and identifying graphics?
Do we just splat the words on our screens – or think about combinations of fonts, colors, and their juxtaposition as we might?

While this story is about a master craftsperson whose work admittedly is aimed at major motion picture studios, his thoughtful and artistic approach is worthy of your consideration too.

Does Accuracy and Completeness Matter? I think today’s NYTimes missed its mark.

A basic tenet of journalism is attributing statements, .pronouncements, proclamations, and declarations or expansions of war to those who made the decisions.

A basic rule for headline writers is to strive for clarity and completeness.

But in today’s (12.26.24) NYT is an apparent breakdown in both a headline and sub-headline that reads: “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians
Surprised by Oct. 7 and fearful of another attack, Israel weakened safeguards meant to protect noncombatants, allowing officers to endanger up to 20 people in each airstrike. One of the deadliest bombardments of the 21st century followed.”

The problem here is the headline. The country made this decision? All the elected officials? All its citizens of every stripe and party? Everyone? Was there a vote? A referendum? The whole kit and caboodle? Israel loosened its rules?

It is partially inaccurate and in that, it feels unclear and imprecise.

The story’s lede properly attributes the decision to “Israel’s military leadership” but that’s still vague. Someone in the chain of command
is responsible for making this change. Shouldn’t s/he/they be named and take responsibility for their actions?

Just as a rule of journalism, decisions like this are made by people on behalf of a country’s policies. Don’t the readers of the Times deserve to know the “who” is in charge here? And, if there is concern for the safety of the decision-makers, then state that in the body of the story.

Just a thought: we should demand a completeness in all reporting, including headlines, lest any one misunderstand what is already a complicated and complex war.