I have noticed a sad fact of life: controversial topics in my CNJ columns get a much better response than weak and gentle topics. And those are the ones the paper hesitates to publish.
When I write about not protecting cops from their rightful consequences, the newspaper is reluctant, but I get lots of comments and "likes" and "shares". When I write something happy that steps on no evil-doer's toes, the column barely gets noticed.
There's a place for the fluff- simple, happy topics that almost no one could object to- but without the hard stuff- exposing those who are using coercion and theft to control what their neighbors do, especially those hiding behind a "government" position- a newspaper is missing its main purpose. Newspapers should routinely oppose tyrants (and wanna-be tyrants) and nannies, and only occasionally, after exhausting every other possibility, speak well of them or support them in any way.
What happened to the days when newspapers were supposed to be "hard hitting"? To have an edge that cut through the local "Good Ol' Boys Club" of puppeticians and those who pulled their strings?
I guess the need to keep advertisers happy- many of whom are connected to the corrupt local politicians and enforcers- has won out over uncomfortable truth in today's tight news market.
And that's a tragedy.
The independent internet is now filling that void, but a rogue local newspaper that stuck to uncompromising libertarian principles would be a nice thing to subscribe to, and to advertise in.
.
