Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My comments on the drug suspect's criminal history came directly from www.mncourts.gov - that is not posting without fact. There was no vile or profane language. And it's not defamation if the things that are said are backed up by the facts. I wish the Daily Journal would print a little more of the criminal history of some of these "suspects". This will be my last post. From now on, people will have to "look it up" themselves. Bye :)

Posted by daidres (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with the managing editor that things do get out of hand on this comment site. I am also happy to see them taking action and removing comment sections when bloggers get out of hand. I myself am to blame for a comment I posted about an individual, and I appologized on the forum to his parents because I got ahead of myself before I knew the facts. As far as the comments about the "drug dealer", he's a good guy, and I have known him for years. Drugs are like a disease, especially the one he's involved with. I hope he finds help and can be the "Old Jason" everyone knew. A kind, caring, and funny guy.

Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I agree the comments get out of hand sometimes, I also agree with "lookitup". There is nothing untrue about listing his previous crimes. We've become such a protective society that no one can be embarrassed by their actions anymore, so they don't feel the pressure to change. It's public record, but we're not supposed to show it?

Posted by prowler (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't you just shut all the comments off (and I mean in the whole forum)? That way you won't have to worry about anyone getting their feelings hurt, you won't have to worry about allowing healthy discussions by the majority of posters, and you won't have to worry about policing and censoring comments by the minority of posters that can't, or won't, meet your standards of conduct. Seems like the easiest thing to do.

Posted by rwooton (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What you really mean is - you're removing comments from people that aren't happy with the shabby reporting of the newspaper. Because I still see comments that are personal attacks on individuals, but son of a gun - there isn't a single comments still around about your writers that make up the facts and don't take notes from the people they talk to - so they can just write things their way.

Count on this - I will NEVER buy another Journal paper, or EVER come to this site again.

I don't work well with HYPOCRITES.

Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:55 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honestly, without the comments I most likely will not be a regular viewer of the Journal on-line. The content generally isn't enough to stand on it's own. The comments add a considerable amount of interesting info - be it good, bad, or otherwise. If the comments go I am inclined to agree with Lookitup - Adios!

Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a shame that it has come to this.
As a result of a few inaccurate comments, or strong opinions, the FFDJ has decided that everyone should be silenced. As a result, those that get online to see the FFDJ online to see what people have to say about the lastest "hot topic" of good ol' Fergus Falls, will no longer have a reason to look at the site. Due to lack of readers, the on line advertisers will not be getting the exposure that they have purchased.
Because we are all "going green", on line is the way to go with the newpaper. I was recently awarded a one month free subscription to my address of the paper version. This caused quite an accumulation of newsprint on my coffee table and ended up in the city trash can.
I, for one, looked forward to jumping online to read the FFDJ and see what the town was up to. Now... not so much.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:04 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by lenny (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Hage, when you say “It seems the majority of the posters have known the suspect was a bad seed since his high school days.” aren’t you expressing an opinion and comment that is hurtful and defames the alleged drug dealer? Just wondering if you should be chipmunked.

Posted by cheif (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a joke. Your basically saying that users cannot express their opinions about popular stories. I've noticed a high spike of traffic at Fergus Forum lately because we don't limit the topics of conversation as you are. If you're reading this, and a comment of yours has been "chipmunked", I invite you over to http://www.fergusforum.com/forum. Chipmunk, himself, has even made the move.

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BRAVO, chipmunk. Very well written. (your punctuation is getting much better) Grade B for punctuation but an A+ for content.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah, I'm done with this site. I personally enjoyed this part of this article... "I will also disable comments on other stories that I deem are deserving."

I'm outta here people. Have fun in the "Jeffrey Hage Dictatorship." Nice "policy" Mr. Hage! Please refer to my comment on the "Should comments be silenced?" op-ed for further reference. BTW I wrote that before your article was uploaded to the site. Call it foresight, call it predictability, call it whatever. Either way, it's pretty weak. Bye, all.

Joel, please feel free to delete this account whenever you get a chance. Thanks.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on April 25, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody cue up Ship of Fools.

Posted by lenny (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like Jeff Hage doesn’t like being compared to Pravda. I wonder if chipmunk would have been chipmunked in Pravda?

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dang, i got chipmunked again

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:04 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

testing.....1......2......3......ha.

Posted by tracy (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now why in the world would you remove luvmyboys comments. I saw them and there was nothing wrong with them. They did not get into any of your definitions of bad posts. This is just mean.

Posted by pamelajo1012 (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i find it sad that you have decided to play god with the comments, i have read some comments before they were removed by ffdj and really didnt see the problem with them, why do you only censor certain people and not others? the comments make the article it is the whole reason i read the ffdj online, to see what people are saying about the news.

Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should all conversation be silenced at the Viking Cafe over morning coffee? I don't see anyone at Perkins, Debbie's Kitchen, or any number of local "knitting circles" trying to silence anyone from expressing their opinions so why do it here?

Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tracy, they were removed because I was making a point to him about removing anything slanderous or that could hurt someone. The February 29 Record still has tons of posts regarding the kid who people allegedly thought he was trying to harm a goose. ALL KINDS of comments are on there, and some are not the "stand up" type of comments this paper wants. So Pooof... I was chipmunked. (the still not-so-nice comments on the Feb 29 Record are still there though) No one obviously blasted in there and cleaned that all up! The most laffable one was when rwooton made his post and under him I wrote "Amen Brother!". Maybe it was "amen" part... who knows., but I got chipmunked again for 2 little words. There's no doubt that the free speech amendment we are entitled to does not exist here. They want to hear only what they want to here... and make up stories as they go, instad of listening to the people that they actually interviewed. Fine way of doing business, eh? You guys are real pieces of work.

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dang, chipmunked yet another time

Posted by justme (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a super idea, Jeff. With a smirk on your face, you can use your power to protect the drug dealers, or any article you write that might stir up controversy. That way, only you can misquote the facts and be unfair. Whether you like it or not, we will still have our opinions. The difference will be, they'll be shared elsewhere and your readership and hits on this site will dramatically drop. By the way, while you were borrowing the policy from the Pioneer Press (already brought up BTW) , did you happen to pick up any pointers on journalism?

Posted by Zeglamancer (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What ever happened to the forums on this site? Worthless.

Posted by oh_its_you (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I think that some people are failing to see is that the FFDJ is a private business. The point of the first amendment was that the GOVERNMENT cannot take away your freedom of speech. A small town newspaper can do whatever they like (as long as it is not libelous or malicious). Having lived in a number of small towns, all of the newspapers are filled with fluff, that's what small town papers are for. The townspeople in these small towns complain about the fluff in the newspaper, it seems as though that is what townsfolk do. It is the nature of the beast. I am sure that if there was only a weekly or biweekly paper people would be complaining just as much. The posters in here that are making a big joke of how many times that they can get "chipmunked" are really the punch line to their own little gags. If you are not pleased with a business you have 2 choices. Deal with it or move on. Read another paper, or even create your own. It seems as though there are some that know everything that there is to knwo about journalism and running a newspaper and are certain that they can do better, so go ahead and see what you can do, if you come up with something better- way to go! Otherwise stop trying to ruin it for the rest of the people who enjoy the option to comment on stories.

Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point.

Posted by justme (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have made several comments as to the content of the articles here, only because anyone with a little common sense should be able to figure out spell-check, sentence structure and proper grammar. The articles I point out are more like rough drafts than finished articles. Many of my suggestions have been taken to heart, by the way.

I've never claimed to know everything about journalism or that I could do better. After all, I'm not a reporter. I've simply read several online newspapers from several small towns and the difference in quality is worth pointing out.

Posted by justme (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I'm at it, where the heck is the article profiling Quernemoen Dairy you promised us?

Posted by SallyRay (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds good to me ;)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 2:20 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh-its-you, if you think just because newspapers are private business’s that they can do just about anything they wish, I think you should read my opinion piece at www.fergusforum.com . I would reprint it here for you but it would be chipmunked Some of us still think newspapers (private or not) were chartered to serve the public good and therefore have some responsibilities other than turning a profit by garnering advertising dollars.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Fergus Falls Daily (I’ve stopped calling them a newspaper) is foreclosing free speech left and right and losing readers, while www.fergusforum.com is championing free speech and gaining members and readers daily. It’ easy to see what the public wants.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people...."
- Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice

"One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change."

The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."
- Commission On Freedom Of The Press

"There is no such thing as an independent Press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid...so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the paper for which I write. You, too, are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone in less than twenty-four hours. The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search for another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings, and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men; we are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, during an annual dinner of the New York Press Association / Source: “Unholy Alliances”, by Dr. James W. Wardner (Wardner is quoting from “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”)

"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."
- Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ben Franklin’s “Fair Hand Policy”
Arriving in Philadelphia in 1723, Franklin worked to establish himself as a printer. In printing,
Franklin found a way to “do well by doing good;” he used his publications to communicate
his ideas and to promote open and spirited dialogue on the pressing issues of the day. As an
early pioneer of the newspaper industry, Franklin held that publishers were ethically bound
to avoid injury to others by publishing “scurrilous and defamatory” material. He also
believed that the public good was better served if the newspaper allowed for both sides of
the story to be aired: “When Truth and Error have fair play,” he wrote, “the former is always
an overmatch for the latter.”

Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chipmunk... I don't know where you went... but I'm so glad you're back!! :)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Luv. If you would ever slow down when you are downtown driving I would stop and introduce myself.

Posted by Zeglamancer (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't. The concept of meeting any of you in real life... is so loserish to me. How does it work? We meet at Hunan Springs or something and nervously eye each other for a few minutes until I break the silence with "Hey I'm Zeg from the internet."

screw that lmao.

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on Chipmunk. Daily Journal, you maybe privately owned but the people control you. We are Americans & we do'nt have to keep you in our town. We can demand fair & balanced journalism & freedom of speech, from you & all media, or we can bouycott you, & any bussiness that sells your rag. That can be acomplished. By what I have read, It may have already started :)

Posted by OhYou (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, Jeff...that is a rather large smirk.

Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They need to use this venue to their advantage. It may mean hiring people to comment on topics they way they want. It should have the story writer out there defending what they wrote. Maybe they should work on changing the tone of the community.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on April 28, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just have to know: Did you wag your finger when you typed that headline?

Posted by Gassy (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he's upset with the comments because maybe that guy he's referring to is his dealer??