Pittsburgh Post-Gazette denies Vietnam vet’s last request
Air Force veteran David Ryan was called a “baby killer” upon his return from Vietnam, like many of his generation who answered their nation’s call to duty. So, he asked his daughter to make sure that his obituary emphasized that he wasn’t a baby killer, according to KPTV. So when the time came she made the request to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that they add the line “not a murderer, not a baby killer, just a Vietnam vet.” The paper refused with no explanation;
“They didn’t give a reason. They just said we cannot print this,” [his daughter, Heather] Vargo said.
She says her father has been disrespected once again.
“I feel like he was disrespected then, and he was disrespected again whenever they refused to print that. His last words,” she said.
A different local paper, the Penn Hills Progress, will be printing the full obituary on the funeral home’s website.
It seems to me that printing that line would be easier than not printing it, if anyone at the Post-Gazette believed it. I’m sure that he’d asked to print a plea for a vote for the wife of a draft dodger for President, it wouldn’t have been a discussion.
I called the Post-Gazette’s editorial department and they blame a contractor that does their obits for denying the request. They tell me that they are investigating the incident.
Category: Veterans in the news
They always have someone else to blame, contractor my ass! They just didn’t have the balls to print his last wish! I hope the flies of a hundred camels roost on their nether regions and a million maggots pop out on them!
Cocksuckers!
You got that right! BOYCOTT the bastards!!!
WHY ARE ALL MY POSTS AWAITING MODERATION??? I don’t see that on anyone elses?
maybe because all the posts you actually on the page have already been moderated?
Mail them a white chicken feather.
Dick move.
A Bernath move… “it wasn’t us, it was someone else”.
Except it is. Or rather its entirely plausible. I work with the press quite a bit, both for the military (PSYOP) and in my civilian job (media relations/incident response) and I am constantly suprised at how much of the “news” is contracted out.
Ever read and article and then went to a different site/different paper and read another article only to feel like you’ve already read it before? Have you ever noticed just how little difference there is between the two? Maybe you notice some structure differences, maybe some style differences, but essentially the articles are the same…
That’s because odds are very good that the article was collected from/by a contractor and a reporter changed it up and put their byline on it.
It started with the associated press (AP), who then shifted to “stringers” (local reporters), then to aggregators (collection points for stringers), and more often than not the topics are selected by an editor, specific articles are selected by a contractor that were written by a sub-contractor, reviewed by the reporter, who makes enough changes he can stick his name on it, and approved by an editor.
Keep in mind that if the sub-contractor or the contractor decide something isn’t worth the time and effort, or doesn’t meet their standards and guidelines, the article never sees the light of day (or never gets written).
I doubt the process is any different for the obit section. The paper has contracted with some agency to review the submissions, the contractor is paying someone just above minimum wage to review these submissions (as well as submissions for other departments) makes some basic grammar/style edits, and passes it along to the obit editor who publishes it.
Goddamn media proglodytes…
“We didn’t do it and we’ll never do it again.” Bastards
Ironically, the fact is that few would have seen the obit were it not for the rejection of the words the decedent wanted in it. Now, it’s on the news and being reported here and elsewhere. Wanna guess who prevailed, hands down?
Penn Hills Progress is a subsidiary paper of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which as you might guess is the conservative-leaning paper here, as opposed to the P-G which is not unlike CNN in its liberalness.
Also, as you might guess, this is not the first example of P-G buffoonery when it comes to treating our veterans with respect.
Make this libtard “newspaper “famous..
I just love the “It’s not our fault, a contractor makes those decisions” defense.
I’ve seen this in setting the property tax rates for local taxes – invoking some far-and-distant (an unelected or otherwise unaccountable) entity for what they are doing to us.
It should not surprise us that this defensive maneuver is picked up by the mediots.
Shouldn’t the paper have the same right as the bakers of cakes in choosing with whom they wish to do business?
This was the very argument posited to me here on this site when I suggested that public accommodation laws were designed to prevent this very sort of thing, where someone gets randomly discriminated against such as refusing to write a saying on a cake. I was asked what about a printer having to print something they didn’t believe in or agree with…right here on this site. And now outrage that someone might not want to print something they didn’t agree with….what the hell?
For me, I believe they should have printed it, same as I believe the baker should write the message the customer wanted on the cake. But what do I know?
They are free to refuse service, and we are free to mock and refuse further commerce.
I havent heard anyone say”club the with government might”.
Oh really? Well they didn’t print it. So do you believe the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette should be fined $135,000?
Where is there an equivalence? In many states, obits are required to be published – something about public information or such. There no such thing required of bakeries or grocery stores. Is anyone required by law to make wedding cakes? Anywhere?
OWB – I am not certain that obits are required to be published.
In the cases of which I am aware personally, we had to pay for the obits to be published – by the column inch. At least in Texas there is no obligation for an obituary to be published. YMMV
Not sure that it is here either these days. Haven’t really checked. Very few years ago, there was a legal obit published with basic data at no charge because it was required legally. If you wanted flourishes, you paid for it. There seems to be a charge no matter how little you say now.
I see your point, but at the end of the day, the newspaper blamed a “contractor” for the issue. So, they didn’t even have the balls to admit and/or take responsibility for what is in their own newspaper.
And the business that refused service to make a gay wedding cake, was fined 6 figures.
So while the equivalence is slim, there is still hypocrisy happening in this.
That’s the liberals chicken shyt way! Blame whoever you can think of, but never take the blame…..!! Learned from the clinton mob and the obozo islamic clowns and of course the dumocraps!
VOV, I’ll chime in (late) on this.
FWIW, when I did a cursory search for Texas statutes on obituaries, I found nothing – I don’t know if Pennsylvania has something in their laws about publishing them or not.
So, in the absence of a law to the contrary, the paper is, indeed, and ought to be free to do business with whomever they please. The same for any business. No argument there.
We can, however, still express our displeasure at the paper’s decision (they are dependent upon customers’ good will) and even mock them should we choose. I don’t think we disagree on that, either.
I don’t think anyone here has expressed the desire to have some governmental entity fine them for their decision. So that, IMHO, is a moot point.
Now – in the counterfactual case where there were a law requiring a newspaper to publish an obituary or a cake baker to scribble something on a cake, under what circumstances ought the business be free from an obligation to follow that law. The freedom of conscience that is part of the freedom to worship as one chooses ought to be one of those circumstances.
[Side note, in Judeo-Christian thought and Scripture, the terms translated “worship” and “serve” are often identical. That is, how one worships in Judeo-Christian thought entails how one behaves, what one does. So being coerced into doing something that supports an action or concept that is contrary to one’s faith to hinder one’s freedom to worship/serve.]
Does the paper have some justification for its actions? They give none, so we don’t know.
The bakers certainly do.
The paper is free to run its business as it desires, and we are free to take our custom elsewhere.
Much like what appears to be happening to the NFL. They are free to allow offensive behavior – we are free to return to the joy of high school football games instead.
The paper hates veterans. So what’s new?
Most papers hate veterans.
Take your business elsewhere and let the free market sort it out.
VOV. They are not the same issues. Sure the cake maker should have been permitted to safekeep his religious-based objection to the gay cake w/o a government mandate to bake the cake or to decorate it with an objectionable message. But where is the gov’t coercion in this obit matter? Obituaries are usually not done by newspaper reporters. The fact that the newspaper is investigating the omission of the deceased Veteran’s statement is significant. Was it a case of censorship that the paper itself would not have approved? In any event, the two aren’t comparable.
Every business has the sign up that says they have the right to refuse service, but the reality is we’ve already determined that’s not true if the person seeking service is a certain victim class…black, religious, handicapped, whatever so if we have some victim classes so defined in the law why are some animals more equal than others? In any actually equal society access to goods and services would be the same regardless of the vendor or the buyer. We all know it’s not true, we’re just uncomfortable stating why it’s not true.
Truth be told I don’t much care if you want to serve gays or not or veterans or not or cops or not or whomever or not.
What I don’t like is inconsistency in the law for certain victim classes, and then exceptions for that based on alternate realities. I realize I possess a minority opinion as a heathen reprobate, but those who have a mystical being in the heavens explaining who is or isn’t worthy of their services all seems a bit wrong for deciding what the law should or should not allow.
We’re not ever going to agree, it’s all good. I won’t waste your time with additional responses, and thank you as always for offering an articulate counter point, it keeps me less dull than I would otherwise be if in an echo chamber.
So basically, even though you declare all these “victim classes”, what you really are saying, behind all your self righteous double speak, is that you hate Christians. You’re ok with that victim class.
Why didn’t you just say so?
That’s not at all what I meant, but you are free to draw that conclusion..
Draw my own conclusion?
You drew it for me.
Actually, we are always closer to agreeing on most matters than you know. I look at many of these types of matters through two, sometimes divergent, lenses: the legal and the commonsensical. The legal one often assists me in analyzing a particular circumstance as to whether there are legal issues involved and the commonsensical one assists me in determining the right and wrong of the circumstance.
I hope he’s kicking hippies in the junk up in Heaven.
🙂
There are no hippies in Heaven. That is what makes it Heaven.
+1
Definitely not the same thing, but it does remind me a little of this classic obituary:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?pid=165695591
“A lifelong Cleveland Browns fan and season ticket holder…he respectfully requests six Cleveland Browns pall bearers so the Browns can let him down one last time.”
According to this story (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/9459655/cleveland-browns-fan-takes-last-shot-team-obituary), the team had a custom jersey made for him and personally delivered it to his widow…
With the exception of a very few independent newspapers, when trying to get a story from T A H picked up and reported, it always amazes me to learn how few MEN and WOMEN who actually served their country in uniform ended up in the print media. Same for their lack of interest in such a story exposing a phony here and there. Just little or no interest. This seems to be especially true when it comes to Editors. Others of us have reported the same situations over the years.
And the print media wonders why circulation is on such a decline. Yet they have the balls to charge $4.35 per line locally (that’s 26 letters, BTW) for obituaries. Greedy bastards will likely not print mine. My will states the obit. is to read: Name, R. I. P.
They are not motivated to denounce fake vets and their fake awards claimed,
But now shriek about “fake news”…..
“…it always amazes me to learn how few MEN and WOMEN who actually served their country in uniform ended up in the print media”
We have higher standards.
So Mr. Newspaper man, if it was the contractors fault, now that it has been sorted out … will you print it now?
Are you people shitting me? An Air Force veteran wants to put he was not a baby killer in RVN on his rock?
FOIA ! FOIA ! FOIA !
Ok, so the paper is being a pain in the ass. I want to see some paperwork that puts this steely eyed killer in the RVN to stat with.
I just want my rock to read, “I was an asshole, but I was genuine.”
And the president elect isn’t a draft dodger?
Avoid the draft? He would have been overjoyed to have been drafted. In fact, I hear he went to the Yankees’ open tryouts two years after college. He was a damn good ball player but not draft level. But thanks for the question, Joseph. Way to stay on topic.
Nope. No draft dodger. The president elect’s draft lottery number was 346.
And like 2/17 said, just what the Hell does Trump’s draft status have to do with the subject of this thread?
Still all butthurt that he won? Or are you channeling Lars?
Please re-read the article. Who brought the draft situation up?
My point also was to show that had Trump been sincere about serving, he would have gone on the plane with me and Mr. Ryan as I understand he “loves war”. Maybe he can start one and send his sons.
Blah, blah, blah…off topic nonsense…blah…gobble, gobble…blah, blah…
Aaaaand your point is relevant to this thread in what way? Just wanted to stir some shit?
You should re-read the post. The unveiled draft reference was to the bias of newspapers in selecting what they will publish, making decisions based on politics, not policies. If you want to dispute that, it’s fair game, I suppose, but accusing Trump of being a draft dodger is out of left field. You then doubled down and challenged Trump to start a war and send his sends to fight in it, moving from left field to well outside the stadium in doing so. Feel free to comment in other threads but don’t change your screen name. That way we’ll know right away the commenter is a jerk.
Oh my! It’s too bad that name calling has commenced. That brings the conversation to a higher level, doesn’t it?
Oh, here we go. Try picking a pissing and pawing match some place else, Hammond. You are out of place and out of line.
Slight correction on my part. Trump’s draft lottery number would have been 356, not 346.
My bad.
No Joseph, the last draft-dodger POTUS we had was “Blowjob Willie” Clinton.
Always astonishes me how few people realize what the percentage of draftee troops in Vietnam was – I recall Hondo throwing out a number one time of less than 40%?
You play the game by the rules in place… during the draft people who could, rode student deferments as hard as they could and if they were of age to have been in the lottery, they got their number and that was that. 346 is a high enough number that effectively there was no way he would be drafted (the average cutoff each year was in the neighborhood of 200.) Essentially, Trump played by the rules and got lucky.
Clinton is another story, as I understand it – to avoid being drafted he made an agreement to join a graduate and ROTC program – then once his draft notice was rescinded he bailed on his agreement. So he DIDN’T play by the rules, and deserves to be called a draft dodger.
I am a little shocked by Trump’s number – while theoretically 10% of the potential draftees had numbers higher than my 336, I have only heard of or met a handful in 45 years.
Do you have a right to control the content of an obituary? No. The content is exclusively the newspaper’s. Can you sue a newspaper for editing something you wrote that appears in the newspaper or for refusing to include something you insist should be included? Sure, you can sue but, unless you have a contract with the paper that gives you content control, you will lose. So, legally, you are up the creek w/o a paddle. So, what did this newspaper do that was so objectionable? To many people, it did nothing wrong at all. To VN Veterans who were accused of being baby killers, the accusation is not easily forgotten. So, this fellow wanted in his obituary that he was not a baby killer and the newspaper, through its agent, refused to include that statement in the Veteran’s obit. The excluded statement sounds bizarre to someone unfamiliar with and untouched by the baby killer accusation. It may sound bizarre to some VN Veterans as well. To others, not so much. The whole matter now strikes me as a tempest in a teapot and quite ridiculous. Maybe he should have rented a billboard when he was alive and had plastered on it his message. It’s just that the more I think about this, the less I like the issue. Still, as I wrote above, his message has gotten out to many more people now than it ever would have had it been included in the obit.
At that $4.35 per line, the local rag DOES encourage surviving family members to write ALL they can about the deceased relative. And they damned well DO!! Never have heard of anyone being refused ANY life history about the deceased, but often I question whether all is honest and accurate. Many of the obits leave you wondering if those people were all either brother or sister to Billy Graham. Some sound like they never even farted in their lives…at least not in public.
217 is right, the guy got more out of this than he could have ever wanted or paid for.
No disrespect to the dead, but had it been me, I’d have wanted the public…ESPECIALLY LITTLE KIDS to know Santa was still alive and to not confuse the two because of a picture. That’s how rumors get started, don’t you know? “Johnny, I hate to tell you this so close to Christmas, but I think I saw a picture of Santa and I think he died!”
God bless the guy and all that, but those of us with a warped sense of humor can find it in the most unlikely places.
I see this as a dead issue. He should just rest in peace and let it go at that.
I see what you did there.
Could NOT resist.
“BOOOOOOOM” 😉