Editor:
Marcy Burstiner’s “Anger Your Readers” (“Media Maven,” Dec. 3) mentioned that the Facebook group description for “Say Goodbye to the Eye (Boycott Advertisers)” initially stated Kevin Hoover’s Arcata Eye should “have no right to exist” for being a community detriment. Those familiar with my activism know this isn’t consistent with my values. I advocate free speech — like this strategic expression of boycotting, however paradoxical sounding, for non-violent social change.
The Eye’s sensationalist coverage influences public opinion via negative portrayals of cannabis, which harms our image. Hoover’s warped negative exposure secures a national soapbox and book promotion, like A&E’s Pot City USA “documentary” demonstrated.
Prohibition’s environmental and human rights catastrophe dwarfs negative aspects of cannabis’ resurgence. I’m not greedy, I don’t grow, and I support local businesses. Morally, I’m compelled to fight an unjust legacy’s perpetuation. Demonizing sensationalism started this mess and can’t solve it. Arcata needs objective and diverse coverage reflective of community, not selective blind spots. Hoover refuses my challenge to debate this publicly.
This isn’t an attack on businesses. Advertisers should ask: Do they desire funding Hoover’s agenda? Would they exist without the Eye? What’s worse, lost business from advertising or a boycott?
Visit www.goodbye2theeye.ning.com to evaluate and discuss Hoover’s actions. Fliers and wallet-sized strategy guides are available online. Boycott supporters can stop some or all purchases at one or all of the Eye’s advertisers for their New Year’s resolution.
Jason Robo, Arcata
This article appears in Top Ten Stories of 2009.
"Book promotion"???? I missed that part. What book?
"Hoover refuses my challenge to debate this publicly"…wait, didn’t I hear you two on K-Slug?
Put down the hookah, dude, you’re just making a fool of yourself.
Your draft confuses me jason.
1-You seem to push the value of YOUR free speech above the value of Hoovers free speech. Can free speech hurt? should some kind of vengeance be expected when free speech impacts someone or should it be "free".
2-Is the Eye coverage promoting or demonizing sensationalism? or both? "demonizing sensationalism started this mess…", howwhat? Can you provide a reference as to how demonizing sensationalism started, well, something, and maybe explain what this mess is, because that isn’t really clear at all.
3-I don’t think you can say that Hoover refuses to debate you publicly, maybe you should say instead that Hoover refuses to debate you AGAIN, right? Why would he anyway when you behave so uncivilly towards him. Another thread has you typing, "Perhaps Hoover would have the nerve to debate this matter and Hank can moderate. That is if Hoover isn’t too scared to step outside cheap shots on the internet, his own paper or his buddy Matthews radio show." Any logically fallacies there? You had your shot and you came off unprepared.
4-I think that you use big words in a bad and confusing way, K.I.S.S. right. Who taught you to write anyway?
If I understand Jason’s message, it’s that only newspapers which give positive or "happy" news about this particular giant industry should be allowed to exist.
This is because of his dedication to freedom of speech.
I don’t demand perfect consistency of anyone, in fact I think that’s become a silly obsession these days. But while Jason’s the first guy to point out the excesses of of big business, he wants me to not report or talk about the huge, unregulated marijuana industry or else lose my job.
At least we agree that it should be legalized.