 |
Image: Deborah Spindle
|
By Gretchen Garrity
Nixa resident Mary Hernandez de Carl was appointed to the Christian County Library Board of Trustees on Thursday, Dec. 12, 2024. The county commission appointed her during their regular Thursday meeting. See here and forward to the 1:00:00 timestamp.
Reporter Susan Wade, of the Springfield Daily Citizen, has been covering the ongoing issues in the library for a few months now. Unfortunately, her articles are slanted toward the side of groups like U-turn in Education and the American Library Association. Here is how the intemperate U-turn characterized the newest member of the board of trustees:
While U-turn in Education described Hernandez de Carl as "known" and "outspoken...", Wade took to social media to do her research:
Kudos to the commenter who called out Wade's lazy efforts to contact the new trustee.
Wade knows who Hernandez de Carl is. And she knows that she is unlikely to get any interviews--a problem the reporter has had for months now.Wade's slanted reporting has cut her off from citizens who hold a different position than groups like the ALA, the Missouri Library Association, and U-turn in Education. Why would anyone speak to her when her reporting demeans and dismisses those with differing views? Citizens know that reporters routinely twist the words and statements of people they do not agree with, so they typically have no interest in speaking with those with hostile intent.
Here is a quote from Wade's subsequent article about the appointment, published HERE (paywall, sorry):
"A woman who has publicly advocated for restricting or removing certain books from local libraries that she found inappropriate for children has been appointed to the Christian County Library District's Board of Trustees."
Reporter Wade has access to the books that have been challenged. Does she think those books are age-appropriate? Is Wade against protecting children from materials they are not equipped to handle? Does Wade know the legal definition of censorship? Can she definitively say that anyone on the current board has called for censorship or book banning?
Wade further states that the library board has been "embroiled in controversy surrounding the idea of removing or labeling certain books..." Notice Wade does not mention titles of any of the books in her article. She doesn't describe them, link to them, publish any pictures, or give readers any idea of what is being offered to minors in the children's and teen's sections of the library.
There's no context. No balance.
Wade does not mention the months of attempts to compromise with the library, with citizens offering ideas like stickers, labels, and book relocation. None of those ideas rise to censorship or banning. They are actions that seek to protect children and the rights of parents to provide access for their children to these materials if they so desire--without trampling the rights of parents who do not want their children to have access to materials they have reason to believe are harmful to their development.
Ask yourself: Why would people want to impose on your children, indeed everyone's children, all-access to books like The Pronoun Book, Pink, Blue, and You! Beyond the Gender Binary, Antiracist Baby, Stamped for Kids, All Boys Aren't Blue, The
Young Activist’s Dictionary of Social Justice, Identity: A Story of Transitioning and hundreds more books that are demonstrably age-inappropriate?
Why?
Wade's reporting makes it seem like those who desire to protect minors and civil rights at the same time are the bad guys; while those who desire to provide unrestricted access of all books to minors are cast as champions of the First Amendment.
Reporter Wade does not provide context or balance because it would disrupt the narrative she has been building--a narrative that happens to jive with that of the U-turn in Education folks, and the ALA folks. The ALA often uses their friends in the press to build such narratives. They find it useful to seed the ground with misleading descriptions of people and actions with which they disagree.
There are two years' worth of board minutes and videos, as well as blog and social media accounts of how citizens have banded together to protect children and citizens' First Amendment rights. These are not mutually exclusive. It simply takes reasonable adults who have everyone's best interests in mind to agree that one can keep children safe and provide age-restricted materials to citizens who wish to access them for their own children. Reasonable people can come together and make decisions and provisions for both based on community values, as well as consideration for the rights of others. It is a "both/and" situation, one that discards the idea that free access for all regardless of age is reasonable--a key point of the extremist ALA's Library Bill of Rights.
Reporter Wade could be of service to her community if she would report in an unbiased and objective manner, giving both sides of the issue and informing the public instead of attempting to influence them.
