Conservative AZ Newspaper Responds To Death Threats

MI2AZ

Active Member
As someone who has spent a career in the business of words, it’s unusual to find myself speechless.

Yet, there I was, a little more than two weeks ago.

What is the correct response, really, to this?

YOU'RE DEAD. WATCH YOUR BACK.

WE WILL BURN YOU DOWN.

YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUAD AS A TRAITOR.

How did I come to be hearing these threats?

The endorsement question we faced
More than a year ago, The Republic’s editorial board began taking a stand against the actions and positioning of Donald Trump. In piece after piece, we made it clear that his principles weren’t conservative. They were bad for the party, bad for Arizona, dangerous for America.

But in its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history?

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.

We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat.

And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people.

So, what is the response?

What is the correct response to any of the vile threats against me? What is the correct response to the more disturbing actions and words directed against so many others?

I've thought about those responses a lot. Today, I offer you a few.

First, to those who called
To the anonymous caller who invoked the name of Don Bolles — he’s the Republic reporter who was assassinated by a car bomb 40 years ago — and threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement, I give you Kimberly. She is the young woman who answered the phone when you called. She sat in my office and calmly told three Phoenix police detectives what you had said. She told them that later, she walked to church and prayed for you. Prayed for patience, for forgiveness. Kimberly knows free speech requires compassion.

To those who said we should be shut down, burned down, who said they hoped we would cease to exist under a new presidential administration, I give you Nicole. She is our editor who directs the news staff, independent of our endorsements. After your threats, Nicole put on her press badge and walked with her reporters and photographers into the latest Donald Trump rally in Prescott Valley, Ariz. She stood as Trump encouraged his followers to heckle and boo and bully journalists. Then she came back to the newsroom to ensure our coverage was fair. Nicole knows free speech requires an open debate.

To those of you who have said that someone who disagrees with you deserves to be punished, I give you Phil. Our editorial page editor is a lifelong Republican, a conservative and a patriot. He was an early voice of reason, arguing calmly that Donald Trump didn't represent the values of the party he loves. Phil understands that free speech sometimes requires bravery.

To those of you who have spit on, threatened with violence, screamed at and bullied the young people going door-to-door selling subscriptions, I give you those dozens of young men and women themselves. Many sell subscriptions to work their way through school. Most were too frightened to share even their first names here. But they are still on the job. They know that free speech is part of a society that values hard work and equal opportunity.

To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable.

To those of you who have invoked the name of longtime publisher Gene Pulliam, saying he is spinning in his grave, I give you his wife, Nina. After reporter Don Bolles was targeted by a bomber for doing his job, Nina Pulliam wept at his hospital bed. He died there slowly over 12 days. The Pulliams understood that free speech, and a free press, come at a cost.

Then, of course, there are the threats against the publisher today.

READ MORE HERE
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Oh, those silly, peace loving, Christian conservatives! Jesus would be so proud!

Like I said in the other post... it's only gonna get worse. People have lost their damn minds.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
If the Arizona Republic is truly a conservative newspaper, and even if its editorial board concluded that Donald Trump's principles weren't conservative -- or conservative enough -- it seems unbelievable that they wouldn't realize that Trump's positions are FAR MORE conservative than those of Hillary Clinton. An endorsement of Hillary doesn't seem logical. The reaction of some critics of the newspaper's stance aren't logical, either.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
If the Arizona Republic is truly a conservative newspaper, and even if its editorial board concluded that Donald Trump's principles weren't conservative -- or conservative enough -- it seems unbelievable that they wouldn't realize that Trump's positions are FAR MORE conservative than those of Hillary Clinton. An endorsement of Hillary doesn't seem logical. The reaction of some critics of the newspaper's stance aren't logical, either.
Something odd about the entire story. MSM is all over this. I smell poop.
 

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
If the Arizona Republic is truly a conservative newspaper, and even if its editorial board concluded that Donald Trump's principles weren't conservative -- or conservative enough -- it seems unbelievable that they wouldn't realize that Trump's positions are FAR MORE conservative than those of Hillary Clinton.
Learn to judge candidates on their own merit.

Example:

Clinton :Devilish: :Poop: is a terrible candidate independent of Trump.

Trump :Devilish: :Poop: is a terrible candidate independent of Clinton.

**Cue up the double-down rationalization.....:rolleyes:
 

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
To the OP, so ridiculous people would react in such a manner over an endorsement. People need to get a life, there is more to life than politics.

That would be like me threatening you all for endorsing Trump. Why would anyone do something like that? Retarded........
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
To the OP, so ridiculous people would react in such a manner over an endorsement. People need to get a life, there is more to life than politics.

That would be like me threatening you all for endorsing Trump. Why would anyone do something like that? Retarded........
Well said, sir.

Regarding the OP- Money talks. Any politician or political group can be bought for the right price. That goes for The Republic as well. JMO
 

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
Most of you all are voting for Trump, I get that. I certainly believe I've offered reasonable, rational and non-emotional/partisan critically thought-out takes to prove that's a stupid idea, but I'm not sure that's enough to persuade. I digress.

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.

We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat.
Actually, I chose patriotism over either party. At the end of the day I'll always look myself in the mirror knowing I didn't vote for a horrible candidate in Clinton and a horrible candidate in Trump.

I don't see why my choice would lead me to threaten violence. That's bizarre.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
Most of you all are voting for Trump, I get that. I certainly believe I've offered reasonable, rational and non-emotional/partisan critically thought-out takes to prove that's a stupid idea, but I'm not sure that's enough to persuade. I digress.



Actually, I chose patriotism over either party. At the end of the day I'll always look myself in the mirror knowing I didn't vote for a horrible candidate in Clinton and a horrible candidate in Trump.

I don't see why my choice would lead me to threaten violence. That's bizarre.
You voted for Obama. Twice, right? Now you are calling Trump/Clinton voters decisions stupid after you helped elect the most UNPATRIOTIC president in the history of the US. No offense, but your "patriotic" statement above is BS because you've already damaged any credibility in your analysis of either candidate.
 
Last edited:

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
You voted for Obama. Twice, right? Now you are calling Trump/Clinton voters decisions stupid after you helped elect the most UNPATRIOTIC president in the history of the US. No offense, but your "patriotic" statement above is BS because you've already damaged any credibility in your analysis of either candidate.
I disagree with your premise to begin with, so we'll agree to disagree from the top. Yes, I voted for a candidate that has a 55% approval rating at the end of 8 years. He is WAAAAAAY better than either candidate now. With the right nominee, I see Hillary could be vulnerable in 4 years. I know I know...."mainstream media" and all that.....

You'll show me negatives, I'll show you the positive numbers.....we'll end up in the same place when it's over. No point in disputing your "point" bc it will lead us no where.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
GTGT I'm not disputing your patriotism, per se. That would be a hit below the belt. What I am disputing is your conclusion based on patriotism.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
I disagree with your premise to begin with, so we'll agree to disagree from the top. Yes, I voted for a candidate that has a 55% approval rating at the end of 8 years. He is WAAAAAAY better than either candidate now. With the right nominee, I see Hillary could be vulnerable in 4 years. I know I know...."mainstream media" and all that.....

You'll show me negatives, I'll show you the positive numbers.....we'll end up in the same place when it's over. No point in disputing your "point" bc it will lead us no where.
Dear GTGT:

Doubling the national debt in those eight years provides "positive numbers"? Are you kidding?

How about far more people on food stamps? How about anemic economy growth of around 1 percent? How about skyrocketing costs under Obamacare? How about more people out of the workplace, and those who do work with little or no increase in salary?

Those "numbers" may sound good if you drink enough Kool-Aid and get most of your information from the lamestream media, but those numbers aren't positive if you analyze them fairly and without preconceived bias.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Dear GTGT:

Doubling the national debt in those eight years provides "positive numbers"? Are you kidding?

How about far more people on food stamps? How about anemic economy growth of around 1 percent? How about skyrocketing costs under Obamacare? How about more people out of the workplace, and those who do work with little or no increase in salary?

Those "numbers" may sound good if you drink enough Kool-Aid and get most of your information from the lamestream media, but those numbers aren't positive if you analyze them fairly and without preconceived bias.
↑↑↑↑ What he said.↑↑↑↑
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
Santa Claus is popular, too. I'm sure little kiddies give him a very high approval rating because they are either misinformed or uninformed.
 
Last edited:
Top