A week ago last Friday, the Idaho Statesman ran an article by Nick Gier, in which he intimated that we were neo-Nazis, and from which, since that time, he has tried to distance himself. Some nameless individual at the Statesman caught the drift of Gier’s argument (!) and made it explicit in the headline. When we protested, and vigorously, Gier started backing away from the implications of his article, and even denounced the Statesman headline himself.
In the days following that defamatory article and headline, three columns were written in response, one by me, one by Roy Atwood, and one by Steve Wilkins. After an inexplicable delay, the Statesman ran those articles today, along with a retraction, on Monday, the lowest circulation day for daily newspapers. However willing they were to retract, it can hardly be said that they were zealous to do so.
This is their retraction:
“We retract the headline that ran on Nick Gier’s Reader’s View on Friday, Aug. 12. And because this issue is of public interest and very controversial, we are giving the opportunity to these gentlemen to respond with their own views, prominently displayed and in a timely fashion.”
I am grateful for the space for us to respond. I am grateful for the retraction. But as much as I do not want to appear to be an ingrate, there are some issues that remain. Why the week delay in retracting, and why the statement that this delay in retracting was actually done in a “timely fashion”? And why a retraction, but no apology?
I think we are making a little progress with the Statesman, but we still have a ways to go. They said “this issue” is of public interest. What issue? The Statesman making defamatory statements? You bet. And “very controversial”? Yes, it is very controversial when a newspaper like the Statesman makes a blunder like this and takes a week to correct, and then issues an anemic correction. That is controversial. But whether we are neo-Nazis is not controversial at all. Like I said, a little progress.