January 11, 1952 Red and Black newspaper editorial written by my father
The Red and Black newspaper News Editor Dan Matthews, Sr. page 4 editorial January 11, 1952
Crowing or Clucking
The legislature cock is commencing to crow.
As the representatives empty into Atlanta from 159 sources and start falling to one side of the
fence or another, the chanticleer perches firmly in the center of the top rail and voices his harsh
welcome.
The old bird seems to herald the dawn of a bright and progressive morning.
Bills are floating through the smoky rooms toward the hopper with features to bear him out.
Legislation on highways, tax-repeal, schools, pensions and
other universally popular subjects all seem bound to come to pass.
Yet- like Reynard speaking up on the ruler of the roost, a foul being is in our midst. Like a fetid fertilizer beneath a beautiful bloom, there is a subtle distastefulness present.
It is a pair of Senate bills, now awaiting House action. One to Institute suits against contracts and agreements made since 1945—particularly those conflicting newspaper arrangements, the other would allow libel suits to be brought against the publication elsewhere than its publishing county.
The first, although general in nature, is direct in its objective. That being to wedge a gap in the economically necessary union of the two Atlanta newspapers.
It is unnecessary as well as unwise. The Governor already has Constitutional authority to act against any monopolies. He needs no compounding of power through a discriminating and precedent-establishing bill as this.
The other is more direct and just as demeaning. It would force the papers with broad circulations to answer libel action—justified or not—over the entire perimeter of their distribution. it proves itself ineffectual by the qualification that to sue locally the county has to have 100 subscriptions coming into it.
Is libel any more so in 150 papers over a county than in 75? Is the person libeled still not the target of that paper's entire press run, regardless of where it is read?
Laws that require qualifying dates, numbers, clauses and other natter are not worthy of being laws. They stand brazenly out for the directed discrimination that they are.
Let's hope that the rooster stays proudly and loudly on top of the fence rail. Let's hope that this session doesn't end with him clucking dolefully from atop the dung heap.
Crowing or Clucking
The legislature cock is commencing to crow.
As the representatives empty into Atlanta from 159 sources and start falling to one side of the
fence or another, the chanticleer perches firmly in the center of the top rail and voices his harsh
welcome.
The old bird seems to herald the dawn of a bright and progressive morning.
Bills are floating through the smoky rooms toward the hopper with features to bear him out.
Legislation on highways, tax-repeal, schools, pensions and
other universally popular subjects all seem bound to come to pass.
Yet- like Reynard speaking up on the ruler of the roost, a foul being is in our midst. Like a fetid fertilizer beneath a beautiful bloom, there is a subtle distastefulness present.
It is a pair of Senate bills, now awaiting House action. One to Institute suits against contracts and agreements made since 1945—particularly those conflicting newspaper arrangements, the other would allow libel suits to be brought against the publication elsewhere than its publishing county.
The first, although general in nature, is direct in its objective. That being to wedge a gap in the economically necessary union of the two Atlanta newspapers.
It is unnecessary as well as unwise. The Governor already has Constitutional authority to act against any monopolies. He needs no compounding of power through a discriminating and precedent-establishing bill as this.
The other is more direct and just as demeaning. It would force the papers with broad circulations to answer libel action—justified or not—over the entire perimeter of their distribution. it proves itself ineffectual by the qualification that to sue locally the county has to have 100 subscriptions coming into it.
Is libel any more so in 150 papers over a county than in 75? Is the person libeled still not the target of that paper's entire press run, regardless of where it is read?
Laws that require qualifying dates, numbers, clauses and other natter are not worthy of being laws. They stand brazenly out for the directed discrimination that they are.
Let's hope that the rooster stays proudly and loudly on top of the fence rail. Let's hope that this session doesn't end with him clucking dolefully from atop the dung heap.
Comments