The San Diego Reader and moral dilema.

I realized I was about to write quite a bit, and I wanted to make a completely separate post about this. My post about Larry Harmon who writes for the Reader prompted some responses that got me thinking.

The original post is here.

One response was: "I do not feel so inclined to trust Larry's musical opinions because I do not think a responsible commentator of subculture would write for The Reader."

I didn't know this, but the owner of the Reader is a large contributor to anti-abortion campaigns among other things.

Here's an article from Sign on San diego that was posted:
"Parental notice bankrolled by weekly's owner"
and one from a Planned Parenthood site
"Publisher funds anti-abortion measure"

My Response: "I would hardly call Larry "responsible." Nor would I refer to him as a "commentator of subculture." That assigns some sort of responsibility. Larry Harmon doesn't have an agenda. He likes drugs, alcohol, and punk rock music. He used to work writing fake sex letters for porno magazines. Satanism is a pretty consistent theme in his Genetic Disorder zine. I don't fucking trust him, but I like him. He's funny. He's pissed off countless readers in each of the forums he's written in, and I'm sure the number will grow, but I think that's a good thing. He's a black spot in a sea of white. San Diego is far and wide a conservative predominantly christian republican city. San Diego is the 6th largest city in the country and The Reader is the 3rd largest weekly in the country. The fact that Larry has been allowed to write for them is an accomplishment in and of itself. I'm not saying Larry is an activist or has any political/religious convictions. He's a writer, and the Reader is the biggest game in town. When the Reader ran a cover story on abortion headlined "What Becomes of San Diego County's 20,000 Fetuses Each Year," and anti-abortion groups were allowed to run full-page ads with photos of fetuses, it "outraged the Reader staff and remains a nearly taboo topic at the paper." But they didn't quit. There wasn't a protest. It hasn't been boycotted. I think that if they were told what to write, or not allowed to write what they want, they'd have quit. So, are you selling out for contributing to a weekly paper that funds the anti-abortion Prop 85. Yeah, probably. Most of San Diego doesn't have any problem with that. However, wouldn't it be rad to write about dealing drugs, satan, and a band called Heroin in some fucking looney Christian fanatic's weekly magazine."

Then I read up a little more, and I got to thinking, but still thought I should be cautious with my words. Abortion is such a freakin' touchy subject, and even the most seemingly uncouth of your friends might surprise you with some deep seeded convitctions. You really can't make assumptions about what people believe.

The next response: "Rich males telling women what to do with their bodies...it's a BIG DEAL to me as a woman. I didn't call Larry a sell out. I'm sure he's a swell guy. I have no personal opinion of him just that I feel writing for the Reader is irresponsible no matter who the person is or their gender. Jim Holman is a monster and I feel very strongly about that. How quaint, that an alternative newspaper is not allowed to have open discourse over their owner's political machine. Apathy is Jim Holman's best friend and a woman's worst nightmare."

Woah. wait a minute. I had to ask myself. Am I being apathetic or dismissive?
In general, I didn't mean to be apathetic, the fact that the owner of the Reader provided the majority of the funding for the yes on Prop. 85 campaign was news to me. Proposition 85 would have required minors to notify their parents before having an abortion. It was in fact defeated, I think mostly based on the idea that for some children, notifying parents might create a dangerous situation. The issue was not whether or not they would be allowed to have one, but I know Holman is an avid pro life supporter.

Therein lies the dilemma. So, maybe you don't agree with his politics. I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. However, do you want to help pay for a campaign you don't support? Is your readership helping support the pro-life campaign? Is limiting your convictions to not buying ad space in the Reader or working for the Reader a cop out? Is the solution for the Reader to just go away? How do you make the 3rd largest weekly in the country go away? Do more people know what Holman does with his money? Do employees at The Reader necessarily know? How much have Holman's values affected the content of the paper? Does it matter whether or not the content is affected? How likely is it that both writers and readers just don't know about Holman? Should pro-choice staff at the Reader feel guilty or resign? Have I just not been paying attention? Am I just completely ignorant? If you are pro-choice do you need to stop eating Domino's Pizza, drinking Don Sebastiani wines, and reading the San Diego Reader? ...I don't know.

Just to clarify, I don't think that the quote "a nearly taboo topic at the paper," was intended to mean staff were "not allowed to have open discourse." It's a little too ambiguous to say what that means for the staff at work, or the content of the paper. Also, I think it's an interesting note that the paper had been operating for nearly 16 years before Holman ever got involved with the pro-life campaign. The same article says the paper was modeled on left-wing papers like the Village Voice, and though Holman didn't necessarily have that mind set, he didnt start the Reader for any reason other than to make money. The fact that he spends that money conservative republican politics totally fucking sucks. Why am I just now finding out?

Please, tell me what you think.