Newsletter award program--clarifying "disqualifications"

[John_S_in_Penna]

The new program for regions' Newsletter Achievement Awards sounds very good. I am editing the newsletter for the 2007 Glidden Tour, and, this not being a region's newsletter per se, am probably not eligible to enter. However, those guidelines are great to improve any newsletter.

I do have a few questions to make sure I'm doing the right thing. In Earl Beauchamp's write-up of the awards program in the Winter 2006 Rummage Box, the scoring form says:

"Newsletter contains foul language, sexual, and/or racial innuendo or comment, or includes copyright material without permission--[that issue of the newsletter is] disqualified."

"Newsletter contains political comment, other than Legislative Reports--Disqualified"

"Newsletter contains religious innuendo or comment (Except reporting event at a religious

facility)--Disqualified"

Now I would be one of the last people intentionally to offend anyone. My writing is usually upbeat. A 1952 Plymouth sedan is just as valuable a part of history, in my estimation, as a Cadillac V-16. The man of humble means and a different race may be a better person than the rich car collector who has yet to learn humility. But here are my questions:

--Suppose I commemorate Independence Day or September 11 with a comment such as, "We can be thankful on a day like this for the freedom God has given to all men. Let us remember our service men and women, and especially Joe Smith's two sons who are currently serving their country in Iraq." That simple statement contains both religious and political comment, as harmless as it may be. And after all, thousands of us celebrate Christmas and probably mention it in our newsletter.

--Reproducing artwork from pre-war car ads is something I see done frequently. Should I write to behemoth General Motors and ask to reprint a portion of a 65-year old 1942 Buick ad, hoping to reach the right person and get a reply in time for a deadline?

If Earl or Wayne or anyone else would care to comment... Thanks!

[Dynaflash8]

MY ANSWER FOLLOWS THIS QUOTED PARAGRAPH: "Suppose I commemorate Independence Day or September 11 with a comment such as, "We can be thankful on a day like this for the freedom God has given to all men. Let us remember our service men and women, and especially Joe Smith's two sons who are currently serving their country in Iraq." That simple statement contains both religious and political comment, as harmless as it may be. And after all, thousands of us celebrate Christmas and probably mention it in our newsletter."

THIS WOULD SEEM NOT TO BE OUT OF BOUNDS, certainly remembering our service men overseas is not out of bounds. Commenting on the right or wrong of them being there IS. As to the reference to GOD it is in passing, and although I am a believer, there may be many non-believers who are also car collectors. Because it is simply a statement in passing I would personally not consider it offensive. On the other hand was the refernce really necessary in a car publication? It could be just as easily have been said, "we can be thankful for the freedom we all enjoy in this great country,..." Actually it could be argued that Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and others were directly responsible for our freedeom, were they or not?

A SECOND QUOTE--"Reproducing artwork from pre-war car ads is something I see done frequently. Should I write to behemoth General Motors and ask to reprint a portion of a 65-year old 1942 Buick ad, hoping to reach the right person and get a reply in time for a deadline?"

I am not a lawyer, but I have heard that copyrights have a 28 year endurance, with the right to renew for another 28 years. So far, I've never heard of anybody being challenged for reproducing old magazine advertising. More current jokes from the newspaper can be very problematical, for both copyright and off-color reasons. In the past two years there have been a number of off-color cartoons printed in newsletters.

In the end, there has to be some common sense applied to all of these rules. You know off-color when you see it. You know ranting on political matters when you see it. And in the past we've seen it all, some intentional, some not. It's simply "Thinking Cap" time. You each have common sense enough to know "bad taste" and obviously Copyrighted articles when you see them. In any instance, people can ferret out something to use to "sharp shoot" any rule. Borderline things will always be judgment calls, but all we ask is for people to think about what they're saying and doing and act on the side of caution. ------Earl

[John_S_in_Penna]

Thanks for your quick and helpful reply, Earl. I wholeheartedly agree that off-color material has no place in our publications; and, since our newsletters are devoted to CARS and the people that enjoy them, topics such as religion and politics should come up seldom, if at all. With 300 million people in our country, there are 300 million different backgrounds, experiences, and opinions--and with the right of free speech comes the responsibility to be respectful to all.

As for great people being the source of our freedom, even they acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So they knew that freedom doesn't originate with man. That being said, no one should wear religion outwardly on his shirtsleeve, but should instead be practicing it quietly in his daily life. I agree that the mere mention of God in passing is not inappropriate, and I would never steer away from such a mild remark. If it were offensive, every region that gives an invocation or blessing before a meal would be at risk.

We are all amateurs, not professional journalists, and whether 19 or 99, we are learning.