I am now up to 25 e-mails and phone calls thanking me for not publishing the neo-Nazi information.
NOT publishing. I can't remember such a response FOR publishing something.
It got me thinking about all the things that people think would be better if we didn't publish. One commenter suggested that we omit addresses of people arrested. Another wrote me: Now if you would only not disclose Charles Davenport, I'd be happier as I am an adult. He is merely a rabble-rouser and lives to incite. Another suggested eliminating Leonard Pitts.
But it isn't just the desire not to read political views that differ from yours. I routinely hear from people who don't want us to publish "bad news." Or more specifically, news that reflects poorly on Greensboro. Or High Point. Or Eden. Or Asheboro. Some don't want us to publish news about the latest celebrity inanity. Others wish we wouldn't publish news about two-bit crimes. Some support the idea that we shouldn't publish information about companies considering locating here, even if they are asking for taxpayer incentives.
They almost all cite the overall public good for keeping the information out of the newspaper, but the reasoning is dubious, in my opinion.
As a reader, I think in terms of getting all the information I can. It always amazes me when people say they don't want to know things. I know this will confuse some people, given that part of my job is to decide what is not published. I'm not trying to justify that or criticize those who want to read only what they want to read.
With so much information available -- what we publish in the paper every day is just a fraction -- it just interests me that so many people want even less.
Not all of the newspaper's content appears online.
*There is a fee for downloading some older articles.