Advisor Source Newspaper Publisher Chris Troszak Shows Bias By Censoring Free Speech

CENSORSHIP is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Please take note of the two words “media outlet” because they are central to this INSIDE OUT blog post.

Free Speech is a valuable right that we all enjoy in a free society. Our founding fathers made this the FIRST AMENDMENT because they wanted to make sure the people had the right to speak his or her mind freely (verbally or in writing) without fear of retribution or punishment.  They wisely wanted to make sure America set the standard for individual liberties and freedoms. They also wanted to make it perfectly clear that no government, media outlet or other controlling body would have the power to tell people what they can, and cannot, say or publish.

Reporters argue First Amendment all the time in order to get the inside “scoop” on a particular story. They use this to protect against their voices being silenced by people who may disagree with a particular story or opinion. They also claim First Amendment protections when a story may anger some people and yet deserves to be printed. Free speech doesn’t mean we will always agree, but it certainly gives us the right to disagree without censorship.

Everyone believes that our cherished First Amendment rights MUST always be protected. Everyone, it seems, except Advisor Source newspaper publisher Chris Troszak.

It has come to our attention that not once, but twice, Chris Troszak refused to publish an editorial cartoon that was paid for by a concerned citizen. This person wanted to express his views about a current township issue. But when he asked Troszak to publish his cartoon, she flatly refused.  THAT IS CENSORSHIP!

Why would she do that? Why would Chris Troszak blatantly violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? As a “media outlet” she is expressly prohibited from doing so. Does her censorship have something to do with her political bias for or against particular township leaders?

In one of our earlier Inside Out posts, we exposed how Mrs. Troszak publicly affiliated herself with the township recall group Save Shelby. When she was confronted about this, she claimed innocence and said she honestly had no idea what it was about.

Troszak then sent e-mails to us demanding that her name be removed from our blog about who is supporting the recall.  She explained that she would never get involved in any political campaign. Even though we had solid proof of her complicity with the Save Shelby recall gang, she denied it and started making demands on us. 

Despite statements to the contrary, Mrs. Troszak has gotten involved.  More directly, she has shown her clear bias against Supervisor Stathakis and in support of the recall.  She publicly joined forces with the people who are calling for the ouster of certain township officials. Whether she did so out of personal feelings or political affiliations doesn’t matter. All that matters to Shelby Township residents is that she did!

Troszak’s first act of censorship occurred a few weeks ago when she said NO to an editorial cartoon showing the recall addicts trying to drag our township backwards. That cartoon (funny and to the point) later did appear in the Shelby-Utica News — an obvious supporter of the First Amendment.  When we reproduced the cartoon on the The Inside Out we had no idea what was going on behind the scenes and how controversial this cartoon had become.

What Mrs. Troszak and the Source did in blocking this free speech editorial was WRONG.

Unfortunately, some people just never learn.  A few days ago another editorial cartoon was presented to the Source for publication. Once again, Chris Troszak shook her head and sternly said NO. This cartoon showed caricatures of Skip Maccarone and Rick Bottcher on a recall parade float.  We have reprinted the cartoon on the right so you can see for yourself what the Source refused to print. Click on the graphic for a larger perspective.  We thank one of our readers for e-mailing us the cartoon.  As you can see, it reprints much better as an original graphic than having us scan the document.

The cartoon was in response to an editorial that appeared in the Source one week earlier signed by Skip Maccarone and Rick Bottcher.  In their joint diatribe, these two publicly called for the ouster of Supervisor Stathakis, and listed their interpretation of why Stathakis should be recalled. Although they tried to make their attack appear legitimate, it actually came across as a “sour grapes” personal vendetta by Maccarone, and a desperate attempt by Bottcher to get attention.

This Source censorship scandal surfaced on the Friday, April 1, 2011 issue of Shelby This Week.  Trustee Michael Flynn discussed the cartoon and explained how the Source would not run it.  Interestingly, for three consecutive weeks prior, the newspaper happily published attacks, both letters and ads, against Supervisor Stathakis.  Two editorials, including the one signed by Maccarone and Bottcher, and an ad from the Save Shelby gang that labeled Supervisor Stathakis a liar and a crook.  While they were eager to attack Stathakis over and over and over, they wouldn’t publish one editorial cartoon to show the “other” side.  Is that what the Source considers objective and independent journalism?  Or, perhaps they are actually subjective journalism with a political preference?

As reported on Shelby This Week, following her initial rejection of this editorial cartoon, Troszak must have had second thoughts.  A short time later she called the artist and said that she would agree to run the cartoon ONLY if the artist agreed to make editorial modifications and adjustments that met her approval.

WTF!!!!!!!!   A “media outlet” trying to tell someone what they can and cannot print?  A “media outlet” trying to censor an advertisement paid for by a concerned citizen?  A “media outlet” demanding that changes be made to accommodate their personal likes and dislikes?  Thomas Jefferson would probably have a thing or two to say about Troszak’s anti-democratic conduct.  Does Troszak tell other potential clients of the newspaper that they can run their ads only after receiving her stamp of approval, or making changes that agree with her personal views?  Is this fair and balanced?

The Inside Out applauds Shelby This Week host Phil Nye for taking the Source to task about this.  Even he sees it for what it is.  He tried to get an explanation for the censorship, but Mrs. Troszak declined to speak to him on camera about it.   Gee, we wonder why?  Instead, the newspaper’s attorney gave Nye a rambling and legalistic response, which even Nye admitted did not answer his important question about why the newspaper was engaging in such blatant censorship.

There is an old saying in journalism circles that “freedom of the press belongs to those who own it.”  In this instance, since Troszak feels like she owns the paper, she decides what is, and is not, covered by the First Amendment.  Evidently, what Chris Troszak is actually saying here is: “I’m sorry, but I will only print editorials, and editorial cartoons, that agree with my views or opinions.”   Is that what the First Amendment to the Constitution says? Is this what a “media outlet” like the Source should be doing?

Why would Chris Troszak take a one-sided attitude about the recall?  Have her personal feelings about Supervisor Stathakis, and her close friendship with the Nightingle family and the Save Shelby gang (the people behind the recall) clouded her judgment?

Considering all the discussion about freedom right now, and especially how people across the globe are fighting for democracy, who would ever think that we would be having a discussion in the United States of America, let alone Shelby Township, concerning legitimate Free Speech rights.  Censorship and bias in news reporting is certainly to be expected among Middle Eastern tyrants, communist leaders, and Third World dictators.  But in the United States of America in the 21st Century??????

Rest assured that the Source has not heard the end of this.  Such efforts to deprive township residents of their free speech protections, and muzzle the First Amendment, deserves national recognition.  We pledge to do our part to make sure the newspaper, and more importantly Chris Troszak, gets the honors and awards they both rightly deserve for trying to muzzle democracy!

Until next time...stand up against tyranny and support FREE SPEECH and the First Amendment!