“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” - A.J. Liebling
My father Bob Wilson took this to heart, and bought one and started his own newspaper, the Prairie Post of Maroa, Illinois in 1958, and ran it until he died in 1972. It never had a circulation of more than 2500 or so, but every week, he would fire off editorials at everyone and everything from local events to the actions of the nations of the world.
He may have been a Quaker peace activist in a Republican district, but his love and support of the farming communities garnered him enough respect that he eventually ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962, though he lost. (He might have tried again, had he not died of an accident while only 49.) Many of his views ring true today. And he might have been willing to change the ones that fell behind the times. Although raised in the casual racism of the 1920s and 1930s, at the age of 15 he took stock of what he was being taught and discarded much of it as being wrong, and lived his life with respect for all.
I decided to transcribe his old editorials (I may make a book for some of my relatives) and every once in a while I will repost one here, as a view of how the world has changed wildly, or remained stubbornly the same.
July 21, 1960
WELCOME, MR. SHUMAN!
Farmers throughout this area will be pleased to know that they may hear Mr. Charles Shuman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, at the Christian Church in Maroa, at 10:45 a.m. on Sunday, July 24th.
Prairie Publications and its farmer-editor are happy to add their welcome to others who have invited this distinguished guest to Maroa.
Mr. Shuman has received a lot of criticism from farmers, some of it unearned. Those who disapprove of his efforts to reduce farm income would do well to realize that he labors under a rather heavy double responsibility. As elected President of American's largest farm organization, he is presumed to represent the interests of farmers before the nation. As an individual of sterling character and great personal charm, he enjoys the complete confidence of bankers and those in charge of the grain trade and the meat-packing industry, and he must repay their investment of confidence in him by carrying back to the farmers their gospel of the “free market” and prosperity through low farm prices.
Mr. Shuman, in the pursuit of his duties, has discovered that most of the plans for raising farm income are Communist Plots, and he has been fearless in revealing this great truth to his membership.
It is our understanding that the church welcomes visitors to hear this address, which we are confident will be a reverent and stirring one. Beyond a doubt, those who hear him speak will be happy to join in a prayer for the future of American agriculture.
July 28, 1960
OUR OPINION
We have been much gratified by the favorable comments we have received concerning our recent editorials on the political scene. Those who shy away from politics must remember that every breath they draw has political significance. Politics is the art of ruling ourselves, and, like religion or sex, it can be degrading, or it can be elevating and noble.
We feel that a newspaper which evades its responsibility to offer editorial leadership, is no newspaper at all. Though mistaken at times, honest editorials that examine the facts and state an opinion, never fail to attain their primary objective, which is TO STIMULATE THOUGHT IN THE READER.
At the same time, we recognize that a great many of our readers have opinions widely at variance with those which we hold. When they take pen in hand to tell us so, we print the result, unless it contains libelous material, lacks a signature, or is utter gibberish.
In order to be fair to its readers, a newspaper must carefully separate NEWS from STATEMENTS OF OPINION, which must be labelled “Editorial”, or “Editor's Note.” Constant vigilance is necessary to keep them separated. If a wedding gown is “lovely”, if refreshments are “delicious”, if “The entire community was grieved” at someone's passing, those are opinion rather than straight reporting, and according to the book, should not appear in a news story.
The newspaper which claims it does not “slant” the news, however, has told its first lie. If a newspapers approves of a bond issue for a new school, they give it a lot of space, and dwell on the advantages rather than the cost. If they disapprove of it, the reverse is true.
Much of this is harmless, and most of it unavoidable. A few editors may see themselves as impartial referees, but most of the breed feel more akin to schoolteachers and ministers. What would you think of a minister who declared, “I plan to keep my opinions to myself; I do not believe in taking sides?”
So the minister states his convictions, and if these offend the listener, there is always another pulpit from which he may hear another message. With newspapers it is even easier; the reader who disagrees with us, need only pick up the Chicago Tribune; there he may read the exact opposite of most of the views we express.
Many a thing we leave unsaid, because everyone else is saying it, and we cannot in a weekly cover every worthwhile subject. We concentrate, therefore, on those questions of immediate importance to us in this area, and on the larger issues where we feel the general run of thought has overlooked something.
We would do you no service if we offered you only what you already knew, only what you expected to hear, only what was true yesterday. Read the Tribune for that. But if you would stretch your imagination, if you would turn upside down the old, dusty furniture in your mental attic, if you would take part in that greatest adventure of the human spirit, the search for truth, then come with us!
Remember, we will need your help! Why not write a “Letter to the Editor” today?
August 4, 1960
LET'S BE PRECISE
In the coming political campaign, opinions will differ widely. It is essential that we use the greatest care in establishing the facts on which those opinions are based.
Dick Nixon is a candidate for the presidency, an office for which, by reason of character, training, and performance, he is eminently unqualified.
The national wire services have loosely referred to Mr. Nixon as a “Quaker.”
The editor of this newspaper is a member of the Religious Society of Friends, called, “Quakers.” We wish it known that Richard Nixon is not a Quaker. He is not now, and never has been a member of any organized religious group which called themselves Quakers. His parents were Quakers, but if he was exposed to Quaker teachings, this was one vaccinations that did not “take”.
One can only claim otherwise by using the rather dubious premise that an individual is “by birth” a member of the denomination to which his parents belong.
Could the Vice President be a Quaker “in his heart”, without ever having joined or participated in the group? We say no, because he has in his public life repudiated all of the testimonies peculiar to the Society of Friends. We know a great many Quakers, and we know none who are not distressed to see Richard Nixon referred to by that name.
When a few people are using Mr. Kennedy's religious affiliations against him, it is particularly unsuitable for Mr. Nixon to be clothed in the public reputation of a religious group to which he does not belong.
It is common practice for the candidate who spent eighteen months behind a khaki-colored desk to remind his listeners he is a veteran, and create the image of “military hero.”
Similarly, a candidate who wishes to be known as a “man of peace” is happy to identify himself with the Quakers, who for three hundred years have utterly renounced war, and have labored to build a world where there is no occasion for war.
As a Quaker, we feel that the public image of Quaker honesty, truthfulness, and spiritual concern has been inflated out of proportion to the reality, just as all “tall tales” gather size in the telling.
The fact is that Quakers are different, but they are no better than sincere religious people of other denominations.
We felt it necessary, however, to set the record straight. Herbert Hoover IS a Quaker; Dick Nixon is NOT.