Archuleta tells all, ctd — The SCV Talk Archive

Some reader reaction to Mark Archuleta's comments at last night's City Council meeting. First, one reader says local ownership wouldn't change anything at the Signal if KHTS is any indiciation:

So what's KHTS' excuse for covering up news? It has local ownership.

A fair point. But that's why I begged for a wealthy local person with a big ego to take over The Signal. With wealth comes a certain freedom from interference. And with a big ego comes pride in your product. Can we get an SCV William Randolph Hearst up in here?

Interference is not what this next reader thinks happened at KHTS:

What Archuleta cites as 'media suppression' doesn't really add up to me. Archuleta was an employee of Carl Goldman's. Goldman could tell him to write that the sky is pink and pigs fly, and Archuleta, as an individual with free choice, could choose to comply or not to comply. It's apparent that he complied rather than resign in protest. Goldman isn't a censor or media suppressor; he's just a bad newsman.

In a newsroom with no apparent separation between the editorial and advertising sides.

And yet this reader isn't disturbed that stories were actually yanked down once published? You can see a picture of the story Archuleta says was yanked after publication at the Down with Tyranny blog.

Another reader echoes the same thing:

If we are to accept Mark Archuleta's version of events at his word- that news articles were re-written or removed to protect our Congressman and City Councilmembers- and that this has been going on since mid-May it appears that Archuleta has left out one very important line to his council meeting speech, which I've added for his convenience:

"And I would have let all of this continue, without saying a word, if they hadn't stopped paying me."

I question the integrity of a man who mourns the death of free speech in such a self-serving, high-profile manner, yet remained silent on this very important free speech issue for months, until it was no longer financially lucrative to do so.

So wait a minute. Let's take Archuleta at his word, as you suggest. Archuleta has a family to feed, so does Goldman. Yet this reader expects Archuleta to resign in protest and take the financial hit but doesn't expect Goldman to do the same thing if, as Archuleta suggests, ad dollars are at stake?

In an ideal world, both men would be principled about this sort of thing. But money plays a part for better and worse.

Another reader says after hearing Archuleta last night, he's turning off KHTS:

I find the story great. It really is a big deal because KHTS has been a main local news source for so long. I have banned them for life after this story broke.

Whether we believe Archuleta or not, this was poorly handled by KHTS. You don't just fire a popular news director and political reporter three weeks before an election and not expect blowback. We're not a valley of rubes anymore.

Another suggests that it's not just Morris Thomas, Alissa McCurley and Buck McKeon who can play this game:

I think its time that someone organize some pressure on Goldman and show him what a costly "business decision" he has made.

An organized, diligent, and unending boycott of businesses who choose to advertise with KHTS needs to begin immediately.

This cannot stand. Goldman needs to tell the truth, and needs to do it now. We need to give him incentive to do it.

We do have some power as consumers in the SCV. Is this the time to use it? Against Carl Goldman and his KHTS Hometown Fire truck?

Meanwhile, folks over at Ray's SCV LTE page wonder if the Signal will cover the controversy. I won't hold my breath.

-----------------