Out in the Mountains

 

 

What Should We Print? 

Most of the unsolicited contributions
we receive at OITM are greeted with shouts
of joy and celebration. “Ready-to-print”
copy from our readers is something we’ve
seldom, if ever, had enough of. The com-
mentaries and letters we receive slip largely
unscathed by our red pens (space consid-
erations aside) and you, our readers, talk to
one another with little meddling from us.

Thus it was not business as usual this
month when our usually casual editorial
meeting turned into a heated discussion
over whether or not to print a particular
piece. At issue was whether its sexually
explicit language was, on one hand, mildly
erotic or, on the other, offensive and
whether it was “soft porn” or a light-
hearted treatment of lesbian sexuality.
And, all arguments aside, it was clear that
most of us didn’t feel comfortable with our
role as censor.

At the root of the problem seems to be
how we can celebrate ourselves as loving
people without necessarily being sexually
explicit, and, of course, where we draw the
line. Does every issue of OITM need to be
safe enough to show tentatively accepting
parents or legislators? Would OITM
quickly degenerate into a “bar rag” if we

I

started printing personals and other sexu-
ally oriented material? Is the paper toot
boring? Are we too prudish, or maybe ‘
homophobic? Do we have the right to cen-
sor what our readers see‘? I
If you’ve already leafed curiously.
through this issue, you know we didntt
print the piece. Our compromise decision
cleverly postponed the dilemma: we de
cided if the submission had been a onetime
offering, we would have printed it, but
since the contributors were offering tobel
columnists, we felt their voices became that ’
of the paper, and carried our implicit ap-i
proval, something we didn’t feel comfort-t
able giving. ).
Our hedge saved us this time but we
need a policy to help us make these deci-i
sions. You, as readers and contributors;
have a right to know our expectations anti
standards, as well as help us decide what
they should be. We, as reluctant censorsi
would like to avoid having to make these’
decisions. If you want to see what we didn't
print and want to help us decide what out
new policy should be, why not come tothe
next editorial meeting (see calendar) or
write and let us hear what you think. (
t
t

 

4

 

 

V.P.R. Supports Lesbians and Gays

In October, Hugh Russell sent a $300
day sponsorship to V.P.R. from their "les-
bian and gay friends." V.P.R. returned his
donation replying that his sponsorship was
inappropriate for their station. (See letters
below)

After lengthy conversation between
OITM staff and Sandy Northrop, V.P.R.'s
Development Director, their original deci-
sion was reversed. As of November 16th,
V.P.R. had not been able to contact Mr.
Russell of their reconsideration. We con-
gratulate V.P.R.'s willingness to hear us
out, especially during marathon week in
November. OITM READERS STAY
TUNED!

October 26, 1988

Hugh Russell

Box 107

Marlboro, Vermont 05344

i
1

Dear Mr. Russell: I I
Under the direction of my supervisor.
I am instructed to let you know that Will
finds your day sponsorship to be innapttt
priate. Unfortunately, the station feels that
your day sponsorship falls under the cart‘
gory of messages which “raise controvet,
sial or divisive political, religious, moral“
other issues.” I
Enclosed, you will find your check",
you would like to donate the moneYa‘°'l
gardless , or suggest an alternative messalil‘
that would be most encouraged. p
Any questions concerning the Slti
tion’s policy should be directed to Sandi’
Northop, Development Director.
Again, I apologize that this is the 0355-;
Sincerely,
Debby Lewis t
Membership Coordinator

(Continued on 1108‘ 7’
A 3