Freedom of the Press
A great part of me is still 4 years old, sitting on the sofa with one skinny leg straight out, watching as Daddy turns down my lacy ankle socks and fastens the buckle on my shiny black patent leather shoe. I can smell his Old Spice. Mama is still getting ready but I know she'll smell like Chanel No 5 and face powder and probably for the first time in a couple of days I smell like Dial Soap and depending on how many times I've been hugged that morning, a whiff of Old Spice, as well.
We pile into the aqua Ford Falcon station wagon and head to church where I'll be greeted by Mrs Sipes and hugged repeatedly while memorizing a new Bible verse. Exactly two hours later we'll all pile back into that Falcon wagon and head to Gold Hill to meet with at least 40 other relatives at Grandma's house for pot roast (6 versions), persimmon pudding, and fried everything.
Repeat this scene times 20 years and you can understand why it's ingrained in me that grown-ups tell the truth, there's a solid line between good guys and bad guys, and when people make a mistake, they humbly apologize and move on.
This history also explains my startled reaction this week to true "freedom of the press".
All my life, I've thought that phrase meant the press had the right to say and print the truth and not be held responsible if it offended another's delicate sensibilities. They had freedom in the press. Freedom to tell the truth without repercussion.
I was wrong. I learned this week that for one local paper, Freedom of the Press means they have the freedom to print, or not, spin, or not, and believe or disbelieve regardless of evidence.
This was after receiving a phone call from a man who had seen the blog and wanted to tell me about his experience with online records. His wife's social security number had been stolen, financial havoc ensued, and they realized the only public place it was available was online at the register of deeds office. Like good citizens would, they went to inform their registrar, warn her of other potential attacks on citizens' security, and even took a yellow legal sheet full of safety suggestions they had written up together at the dining room table. They didn't get very far.
The registrar, according to this man, was "the most arrogant person I've ever encountered" and wasn't interested in their dilemma or suggestions but kept repeating, "This is the way we've always done it and I am not going to change."
Imagine his surprise these few years later to read a glowing endorsement by the Salisbury Post who quoted the registrar as saying, "There has never been an incident of ID theft that I'm aware of" (proving immediately she is woefully unaware).
Local guy immediately went to the newspaper office to tell them his story but no one would listen. "I stood there for 45 minutes essentially talking to myself," he said.
Thinking he may not have reached the right person, I decided to call and share a recent home theft by deed situation with the paper. Be blessed if I didn't get the same treatment.
I barely got my name out before the man on the other end spat, "I know who you are!" Alrighty. Well the purpose of my call, "I know why you're calling!" he interrupted again. I forged ahead thinking the incident of home theft would excite him enough as story fodder that he would calm and listen. Wrong again. Halfway through that story he quoted the registrar's belief that there had never been an incident of ID theft related to online records. "Show me one!" he asked.
But I couldn't, only because I couldn't out-talk him. He was loud. Rude. And he would not be persuaded by mere evidence, and even when I did finally get part of the story out he changed his demand to "Show me the police report!"
Problem is, there isn't one yet of that particular incident or at least one that I can find. The police department isn't talking and the girl who overheard the incident as it unfolded at the registry has no idea who the man was. She just knows he was dismissed with a wave of the hand and told to "get an attorney".
For the remainder of that brief, loud, call, we sparred in half-sentences on whether online recordkeeping was mandated by the state. (It most definitely is not.) He still believes it is, which tempted me to shout, "Show me the law!" but I refrained. After all, my purpose is to get the word out, not alienate the messenger. The call ended when he stated we have a "philospohical difference of opinion" and hung up.
What you've just witnessed is a true example of 'freedom of the press'. They can listen or not, endorse who they please, hold them as shining examples, and refuse to acknowledge the truth. That's the real freedom of the press.
No matter who the paper is or where the registry is, if they tell you that your records are safe online and that there have been no incidents relating to online publishing, they're lying and you can tell them I said so.
Thank God for Mama, Daddy, Mrs Sipes, and the internet.
Visit www.FindMyID.com We tell the truth.
We pile into the aqua Ford Falcon station wagon and head to church where I'll be greeted by Mrs Sipes and hugged repeatedly while memorizing a new Bible verse. Exactly two hours later we'll all pile back into that Falcon wagon and head to Gold Hill to meet with at least 40 other relatives at Grandma's house for pot roast (6 versions), persimmon pudding, and fried everything.
Repeat this scene times 20 years and you can understand why it's ingrained in me that grown-ups tell the truth, there's a solid line between good guys and bad guys, and when people make a mistake, they humbly apologize and move on.
This history also explains my startled reaction this week to true "freedom of the press".
All my life, I've thought that phrase meant the press had the right to say and print the truth and not be held responsible if it offended another's delicate sensibilities. They had freedom in the press. Freedom to tell the truth without repercussion.
I was wrong. I learned this week that for one local paper, Freedom of the Press means they have the freedom to print, or not, spin, or not, and believe or disbelieve regardless of evidence.
This was after receiving a phone call from a man who had seen the blog and wanted to tell me about his experience with online records. His wife's social security number had been stolen, financial havoc ensued, and they realized the only public place it was available was online at the register of deeds office. Like good citizens would, they went to inform their registrar, warn her of other potential attacks on citizens' security, and even took a yellow legal sheet full of safety suggestions they had written up together at the dining room table. They didn't get very far.
The registrar, according to this man, was "the most arrogant person I've ever encountered" and wasn't interested in their dilemma or suggestions but kept repeating, "This is the way we've always done it and I am not going to change."
Imagine his surprise these few years later to read a glowing endorsement by the Salisbury Post who quoted the registrar as saying, "There has never been an incident of ID theft that I'm aware of" (proving immediately she is woefully unaware).
Local guy immediately went to the newspaper office to tell them his story but no one would listen. "I stood there for 45 minutes essentially talking to myself," he said.
Thinking he may not have reached the right person, I decided to call and share a recent home theft by deed situation with the paper. Be blessed if I didn't get the same treatment.
I barely got my name out before the man on the other end spat, "I know who you are!" Alrighty. Well the purpose of my call, "I know why you're calling!" he interrupted again. I forged ahead thinking the incident of home theft would excite him enough as story fodder that he would calm and listen. Wrong again. Halfway through that story he quoted the registrar's belief that there had never been an incident of ID theft related to online records. "Show me one!" he asked.
But I couldn't, only because I couldn't out-talk him. He was loud. Rude. And he would not be persuaded by mere evidence, and even when I did finally get part of the story out he changed his demand to "Show me the police report!"
Problem is, there isn't one yet of that particular incident or at least one that I can find. The police department isn't talking and the girl who overheard the incident as it unfolded at the registry has no idea who the man was. She just knows he was dismissed with a wave of the hand and told to "get an attorney".
For the remainder of that brief, loud, call, we sparred in half-sentences on whether online recordkeeping was mandated by the state. (It most definitely is not.) He still believes it is, which tempted me to shout, "Show me the law!" but I refrained. After all, my purpose is to get the word out, not alienate the messenger. The call ended when he stated we have a "philospohical difference of opinion" and hung up.
What you've just witnessed is a true example of 'freedom of the press'. They can listen or not, endorse who they please, hold them as shining examples, and refuse to acknowledge the truth. That's the real freedom of the press.
No matter who the paper is or where the registry is, if they tell you that your records are safe online and that there have been no incidents relating to online publishing, they're lying and you can tell them I said so.
Thank God for Mama, Daddy, Mrs Sipes, and the internet.
Visit www.FindMyID.com We tell the truth.
posted by Happy at 9:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home