The editorial board of The Independent meets weekly to discuss the pertinent issues of the publication in not only the respective sections but as whole. The purpose and integrity of the paper weighs heavily on the minds of this group as we press forward in our twentieth year. While the final word on any given decision is left to The Independent publisher, Josh Warburton, the experience and input of all four of our section editors is weighed with careful measure. The board is a critical part of our publication, and we take it seriously.
While the decision to stand our ground on the Dr. G column that had an accompanying controversial lead photo of two people wearing LDS garments was ultimately Josh Warburton’s, there was considerable debate and discussion from all board members leading up to this final decision. This was not an issue we took lightly, and while there was some dissent, ultimately we decided that the board would stand behind the decision. However, in the case of this particular article, we feel that the sensitive nature of the subject matter to this community—and the subsequent passionate responses—warranted an editorial response.
There are three misconceptions here we feel must be cleared up now that the dust has settled and several sides of the issue have been heard—and even published on The Independent website via letters to the editor and opinions from regular contributors, both supporting and denouncing our decision.
The first misconception was that the photo was solely intended to offend or mock people of the LDS faith. This is patently false. While The Independent is known for having an edgy, alternative side, and we do not shy away from material that might be construed as personally, politically, or religiously offensive to some, we do not go out of our way to offend for the sake of sensationalism or “click baiting.” What is clearly not understood as evidenced by the multitude of individuals demanding under the guise of religious autonomy that we take the photo down is that religious freedom is something protected by the First Amendment but not from it.
In light of the pressure from LDS members of the community—up to and including St. George City Councilman Jimmie Hughes—and ominous threats by certain other members of the community to run us out of business, even going so far as contacting our advertisers and demanding they cease doing business with us, we had in mind the curious irony of this very religion which on many previous occasions has defended their own behavior and statements which could be perceived as offensive by others using this very same Constitutional litmus. In a 2006 LDS General Conference, Elder David A. Bednar, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, said, “You and I cannot control the intentions or behavior of other people. However, we do determine how we will act. Please remember that you and I are agents endowed with moral agency, and we can choose not to be offended.” We cannot help but think such wise words are applicable here.
The second misconception—given the diversity of our readership and potential that any number of groups could be offended by any number of issues at any given time—is that popular demand or public pressure could lead to the removal of a piece of content once published. Retractions, corrections, or—in rare instances—apologies are printed either within or in response to the original content. However, removal of such material is unethical from a journalistic standpoint, and we simply do not do it.
In the case of the photo, there was no correction or retraction of incorrect information which could be printed. Please understand that we are now aware to what extent such a photo was offensive to some in this community. Those responsible for publishing this particular piece recognized that it was a risky choice, but again, we consider The Independent a publication willing to make some risky choices occasionally. However, no one was prepared for the reaction we received. Given this knowledge in hindsight, a different decision might have been made (and such considerations will be included in the future). Having said this, we will ultimately defend the right of our writers and individual editors to do their work unhindered by mob mentality as we are guaranteed the right to do under the First Amendment.
The last misconception comes in response to one of those aforementioned guest opinions from our own regular contributor of 18 years, Rich Rogers, whom we feel captured best the sentiment of those in the community offended by the photo. In his piece [“With LDS garment issue, the Indy wasn’t making for good neighbors”], Rogers implied that while we had the right to hold our ground, we should not have in this particular case. He said that we needed to consider the fact that our audience is presumably mostly Mormon people in this community. Just because we are based and published in St. George does not mean this community—or perhaps more importantly, a certain sect of this community—is our only audience. Our audience is the entire reading community, both in the state of Utah as well as outside of it, and we will continue to be nothing short of voice for them in all of our content.
We appreciate our reading audience, as well as our contributors and advertisers, and consider it a privilege to serve the community as a whole.
Josh Warburton, Publisher
Paul Dail, Copy and features editor
Don Gilman, News editor
Jason Gottfried, Line editor
Dallas Hyland, Opinion editor
