The Portsmouth Daily Times Saga (ongoing, perhaps?)

In the Sunday Oct. 14th installment of my local paper, the Portsmouth Daily Times, there was an article written by the esteemed Jeff Barron about a local WWII veteran. While it is obvious a quite stretch to publish the stories of a WWII vet in a NEWSpaper, look at the emphasized word people, the story itself wasn't too bad. I think that, for the most part, some of the war crimes committed by the Japanese were largely overlooked; this is partly due to our own suppression of facts from our own MacArthur.

What I did have an issue with, however, was the current commentary ran alongside with the "story." While I don't have a copy of the actual text, nor do I want to pay the Portsmouth Daily Times money to their archive section, there was little of an actual story that Barron represented. He elected to have comments of racial and national hatred posted in his article, effectively crippling the power of the statement he was trying to convey. The veteran that was interviewed went as far to say that he wished Japan was bombed nowadays.

Obviously this is easily categorized as hateful speech. While there will be a level of frustration to be held by any POW, it isn't right for a journalist to not show restraint in this instance. Journalists have a responsibility to, yes, present the news, but presenting an unnecessary commentary that is pro-hate, especially on the front page of said paper, is, well, dumb. Offended by the irresponsibility of the writer, the paper and, yes, the veteran for spouting out hate in a public forum, not for him understandably killing his captors like Barron wants you to think, I wrote a response to the editor of the PDT, Art Kuhn.

It went like this:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Published: October 18, 2007
Reader offended by WWII veteran's story Does Jeff Barron realize it is the year 2007? After reading the front page article of the Oct. 14 Sunday paper, I had to not only question Jeff Barron's timely relevancy, but also his journalistic integrity. But, not only did it make me question Barron, it also made me question the decision of the editor of the Portsmouth Daily Times, and the insane (Andy's note: my original WPS writing actually has this listed as "inane", good thing the Portsmouth Daily Times have such a well-rounded vocabulary) and harebrained decision to include this truly sad article on the front page of a current newspaper. While it is apparent the Japanese did commit abhorrent atrocities during WWII, especially to those of mainland Asia, I don't find it to be relevant or necessary as a current article. I sort of understand the intention of the article; it was written to simply honor the deeds of one of our veterans. It is true Crayton Burns served bravely as a U.S. soldier, however, the article turns him into some sort of vengeful, warmongering monster. The writer of this article is of course the one who decided its content. Did the writer really feel it was in the best interest of Mr. Burns to point out the fact he has a bayonet that he murdered a Japanese man with proudly displayed on his wall? This weapon, an instrument of death and destruction, indicates to me a man who never could let his past go; a past that clearly clouds the judgment he carries with him today. This is evidenced when Burns states he would drop a bomb on the whole country. Does Mr. Burns realize these are innocent people? Do you, the Portsmouth Daily Times, understand the severity of actually publishing such nationally charged and xenophobic statements in your paper? Just this summer I had a friend, Yuuki, who visited here from Japan. She came to this town, saw the Ohio River, ate at the same places everyone here does, shopped at the grocery stores and even glanced at the daily paper every day. While it is rare we get foreigners here, much less Japanese ones, is this the type of impression you want to impart on people? You had the decision to include or omit the statements by the clouded Mr. Burns, damning an entire people and it's country, yet you elected to keep it. The fault, then, does not solely rely on the writer, but you as well. Shame on Mr. Barron, Mr. Burns and you. This kind of hateful speech and mentality should not be tolerated in the 21st century. It is sickening to see it not only thrives, but my local paper seems to help it spread. Andrew McClave Portsmouth

Within the following days I received a few calls from the PDT of the general "do we have consent to print" variety. Two of the calls I received, though, were from Jeff Barron himself.
He asked my age and which college, since I did say I was a college student on the form I submitted the letter to the editor, I attended. On the last call we had he told me something along the lines of, "I'm doing a writing in response to yours in the next Sunday paper." I really didn't know what to think. I was suspecting he might have been doing an apology because he may not have intended for the piece to have offended anyone, this is Portsmouth after all.

What I got as a response was a little shocking. The response was not only directed at me, but at the school I attend as well.

It reads like so:
COMMENTARY Censoring is not our job
Jeff Barron; PDT Staff Writer
Published: October 21, 2007
Iusually don't respond to letters to the editor, because everyone has a right to voice their opinions. But when someone tries to censor another person, then I've got a problem. Last week, I featured 92-year-old Crayton Burns in our series on WWII veterans. Burns was a Japanese prisoner of war for 3 1/2 years and witnessed horrific things most people never could imagine. I asked Burns to tell me what his time in hell was like, and he told me in graphic terms. I printed Burns' incredible story and the Portsmouth Daily Times has been receiving letters in support of it. However, 23-year-old Shawnee State University student Andrew McClave was offended. In a letter to the editor, he questioned my journalistic integrity and wondered why the newspaper published Burns' comments. He also called Burns a "vengeful warmongering monster." That's why I decided to speak out. McClave can question my integrity and he can rip my editor, Art Kuhn, and the newspaper all he wants. We're in journalism, so we have thick skin. After 12 years in the business and 48 years on this earth, I'm not too concerned about what a 23-year-old college student thinks of me. But to try and censor a 92-year-old man who fought and suffered so students like McClave can make their misguided (I'm trying to be nice here) statements was too much for me. Someone needs to teach McClave a lesson about free speech, and I am the one who's going to do it. I realize as a college student on a liberal campus, (and SSU is a liberal campus, trust me) McClave gets a steady diet of women's rights, the environment and other pet liberal topics. Freedom of speech, unless it is promoting the liberal ideology, usually is not high on the list. But despite political correctness, there are plenty of other issues in the real world McClave and other students must deal with. That includes the horrors of war. McClave wonders if I felt it was in the best interest to report Burns still has the gun he killed one of his Japanese captors with. Yes I did, or I wouldn't have reported it. McClave also said we had the option to include or omit statements by the clouded Mr. Burns that damned an entire people and their nation, yet we elected to keep them. That's right. That's because we report the news as it happens and accurately report what people say. It is not our job to censor or rewrite history. I'll leave that up to liberal professors who manipulate young minds like McClave's. McClave also said the story was written to honor Burns. No it wasn't. It's not my job to honor anyone. My job is to tell a story, and that's what I did when writing about Burns. McClave also talks about his Japanese friend, Yuukivisited Portsmouth during the summer. He wonders if this is the type of impression we want to impart on visiting foreigners. Well, yes it is. I hope Yuuki learned all about free speech while visiting here. If not, perhaps she can read my story of Burns to learn more about it. McClave concludes his rant by shaming myself, Kuhn and Burns. "This kind of hateful speech and mentality should not be tolerated in the 21st century," he writes. Well it's not tolerated on college campuses, that's for sure. But it is elsewhere because we live in a free country, thanks to heroes like Burns and other men featured in our WWII series. I realize I've been harsh on McClave in this column. That was by choice, because I had to use some tough love in straightening him out. Nothing personal, however. In fact, I had to call McClave twice to verify some facts, and he seemed like a nice, polite guy. But he must realize that in 20 years or so, we won't have WWII vets around anymore to hear their story firsthand. Instead, we'll be at the mercy of those who will rewrite history as not to offend people. So, we must talk to the men who actually were there to get the story right. Those stories won't be nice and rosy. But war is not nice and rosy. It is my job and others in the media to portray it as it happened. That is what my readers demand and that is what my readers will get. JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.


I don't know how Mr. Barron turned an opinion, which education obviously did not have a factor in, into some sort of liberal conspiracy but he certainly did. The main crux of the argument that really got me, though, was where he completely misquoted me and tried to imply that I attack veterans.

I knew I had to respond, so I did. I sent a rather lengthy response that most likely won't get published for two primary factors: the sheer length of it and Jeff Barron, nay, the Portsmouth Daily Times, must have the last laugh. However, I'll get to that in a moment.

My response looks like this:

I don’t remember when I said I was against free speech. I also don’t remember when I told Mr. Barron what I study in college, how long I’ve been going to the school, or my political beliefs, but apparently he has a foresight unattainable to most human beings. It seems, to me, that Mr. Barron builds arguments solely based on conjecture and assumption.
There are a number of topics at hand here that I want to discuss about Mr. Barron; these include the shortcomings of his sensationalistic writing, his misconstruing of my presented ideas, his assumption, something his piece is rife with, that I am pro censorship and the general misunderstanding of my college education and the “liberal professors that manipulate young minds.”
First off, I never called Mr. Burns a vengeful war-monger. I understand that Mr. Barron is quite sensational in his writing, he doesn’t hide his conservative spin on things, but let’s not take things out of context here. What I clearly stated in my letter to the editor was “the article turns him into some sort of vengeful, warmongering monster”. There is a clear difference here. What Mr. Barron wants you to believe is that I made that statement as an attack against Mr. Burns, what Mr. Barron can’t grasp is that it’s a dig on how he elected to represent Mr. Burns.
In his response to my article, clearly showing that he is indeed concerned about a 23 year-old college student’s opinion, Mr. Barron states that the story wasn’t written to honor Burns. He states it is his job to report the news as it happens. Curiously, Mr. Burns must have a very interesting definition of the word “news”, because I was always under the impression that it the supposed reporting of recent events. Part of the original reason I wrote into the paper was to question the timely relevancy of the piece, I think it’s pretty apparent that history from over 60 years ago should not be confused with the news.
Mr. Barron assumes that I get a “steady diet of women’s rights, the environment and other pet liberal topics.” What Mr. Barron actually doesn’t know is what I do study. In the two brief conversations I had with Mr. Barron, as he even stated himself, I didn’t really say much. He asked my age once, my college I’m attending the other. The conversations were so brief, in fact, he couldn’t have even determined that I am nice or polite, much less figure out what I actually do study.
I am a first year student of Shawnee State University, I’m a transfer student from Ashland, Kentucky. What this means is that there really hasn’t been enough time for my mind to be, as Barron hilariously puts it, manipulated by liberal professors. I have not taken, or will have the need to take, any of the courses falling in line with “liberal pet topics”, seeing as I am an English Major. It is almost as if Mr. Barron used my letter primarily as a reason to launch an unfounded attack on Shawnee State University, considering that not once in my letter do I actually mention my age or college student status. If I didn’t personally supply Mr. Barron with those pieces of information, half of his “rant” would be missing.
What still confuses me is that Jeff Barron thinks that my education, sorry I meant manipulation, is why I responded. This article was worthy of response to me purely for ethical reasons, nothing more. How he turned this into an attack on the education Shawnee provides is a little shocking, especially considering this community is indebted to the college. It seems to me that I was nothing more than a catalyst for Mr. Barron to launch an attack on students being brainwashed by liberal professors, as if Mr. Barron was Ann Coulter-lite.
Mr. Barron implies that I do not understand the “horrors of war”. What Mr. Barron does not know is how well versed I am on the subject of not only the Pacific Theater of WWII , but also the history of the Second Sino-Japanese War. As troubling and as disturbing as times then were, especially the Nanking Massacre and Unit 731 (which the US government secretly granted immunity to those involved in it’s grisly practices), I don’t expect to read about it in the front page of a newspaper. Would you question the credibility of a paper that published excerpts from The Rape of Nanking on it’s front page?
Just because I see a problem with an article’s current relevancy doesn’t mean I support censorship. I agree with Mr. Barron, surprisingly enough, that history should never been censored. Mr. Barron, though, is not a historian, he is a journalist in a daily paper. There is a distinct difference between censoring one’s work and practicing journalistic restraint. I’m not asking Mr. Barron to rewrite history, I didn’t even say that I disagreed with the horrors that Mr. Burns did endure; I only stated that his current statements towards the destruction of modern Japanese life, how it was symbolized by Mr. Barron by pointing out Mr. Burns still had his rifle, was uncalled for.
When I read Mr. Barron’s statement “it is [hateful speech and mentality should be tolerated] because we live in a free country” I honestly cringed. The fact that Mr. Barron thinks that hate is tolerated everywhere else in the USA is absurd. If this article were to be published in a larger city with mixed races it simply would not be tolerated; there would be throngs of protesters exercising their freedom of speech directly outside of the paper’s offices.
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Barron actually figured there would be any sort of backlash to his article. He probably never even thought that anyone would take any offense to the article. What would of Mr. Barron’s tirade against me look like if I never told him I was a student of Shawnee? This indicates to me that he’s nothing more than an opportunist with very few straws to grasp. Not only did he miss the point and context of my writing, he also missed the mark with a thinly veiled jab at a university that had no bearing on my response. Poorly written sensationalistic writing is what people should not demand, but it seems it is what we get.

---

I'm almost positive that Mr. Barron read my response. The reason why I added the "ongoing perhaps" onto the title is because this has been distributed around my campus to, yes, manipulators with PhDs. While I'm not sure what the angered professors at SSU intend to do, I know it's a topic of discussion at the school.

More whenever it happens...

-Andy