Are we in a free country still?

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, many 4-H members are already in college, and those that are taking Agricultural Marketing as part of their courses already have an idea of what ABP is about, and may very well excercise the opportunity to vote.

I know of two such young people in one family close to my home that have cattle, pay checkoff and are keenly interested in the politics of the beef industry. I doubt that they are alone in their concerns.

Apathy among producers has resulted in what ABP has become, and as long as that continues things won't likely change, so I for one, will be pleased to see some young people get involved in the process, perhaps they can haul a few of their parents along to the meetings.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer: You said “I still value free speech and part of that is having free press, not press that is controlled by Government, big business or private interest groups.”

While that may be an ideal, the term “free speech” only refers to a press that is not controlled by government. We operate in a free enterprise economy and the press is privately owned, most often with a profit motive. Magazines and newspapers have two sources of revenue, subscriptions and advertising and it would seem that if the paper wants to make money the editorial policy of the paper must pay attention to the sensibilities of both groups. I am sure if you advertised your cattle in a magazine that ran an article denigrating Luing cattle you would not be a happy camper and most likely you would not advertise in that magazine again. Would that make you against free speech, no. It is just free enterprise and you would just be looking after your interests.

We are fortunate to have Agri-ville as it is a true example of free speech.

It is good you have found a fit in the NFU. However I suspect the NFU might not lobby for my interests as I might look for more free enterprise solutions. Different strokes for different folks.

[coppertop]

Excellent comments farmers_son. The newspaper associations usually have a policy on letters to the editor, with regard to content, potential for libel suits etc.
If a publication prints a letter or article that results in legal action due to allegations of inflammatory content, the publication is on the hook as well because they chose to print the item. Sometimes only a few words or even a word in an article or letter will result in it not being printed.

[grassfarmer]

Coppertop, perhaps you could highlight the parts of my letter that you thought caused it not to be printed because of possible legal action?

Farmers_son, perhaps you would like to comment on the main part of my last post?
Do you back the ABP stance on not allowing any discussion or support being given to the BIG_C group despite this being the apparent wish of western producers?

Did you support the ABP stance of supporting the findings of the packer profiteering "inquiry"?

Did you support their stance on not allowing a leader of another farm producer organisation to attend a press conference revealing those results?

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, in my experience in dealing with the media, and having taken several media courses associated with a previous position I held I suspect that the following statement would have raised some concern.

" In truth I suspect the ABP were more interested in concealing the list of defeated resolutions from beef producers'.

I am certainly not for one minute being critical of your letter grassfarmer, I think it contains many statements that are valuable and certainly thought provoking. The reference to possible concealing of evidence from producers may have been the reason it wasn't printed. Perhaps it could have been worded somewhat like this " It is puzzling that ABP chose not to publish defeated resolutions when doing so would have assured the membership that the affairs of ABP are conducted with transparency".

[grassfarmer]

Update,
After recontacting editors it appears Cattlemen magazine intends to publish my letter. Alberta Beef refuses to do so - apparently they will only include letters that refer to opinion or articles written by their staff. Seems rather strange - a newspaper or magazine that won't print letters that concern issues affecting their readers if they are written by fellow readers. It's certainly an effective way to deny free speech and the right to be heard through your magazine.
Speaking of being heard, in my last post on this thread did you notice I asked you some questions farmers_son? I really would be interested in your replies.

[rkaiser]

Think you could help me out with my letter writing skills coppertop? It seems por old Roy took my letter printed in the Alberta Beef magazine this month rather seriously and intends to get me back in the next issue. OOOOOOO am I scared or what!
Stay tuned. I offered him a truce and apolgised for hurting his feelings when he called to chew me out this afternoon, but don't know if he is ready.

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, clad your letter is going to be published. It will be seen by a lot of readers so it won't matter that Alberta Beef isn't going to publish it.


Randy, what sort of writing are you planning on doing ????? Post what you have in mind and I will help if I can, although you do seem to have a way with words, so doubt that I can be of much help.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer: I am glad your letter is getting published. I would think you owe the ABP proofreaders an apology. LOL You said “I am furious to see neither have in fact published it. Lack of space? maybe... I rather suspect it didn't get past their ABP proofreaders. How ironic if this bastion of freedom and free enterprise were censoring letters much like a communist regime would do. Time to wake up producers and realise what is going on with your levy dollars. “

If you thought the ABP was behind your letter not being published, do you now think the ABP has contacted the Cattleman and instructed them to publish your letter? Can’t play it both ways you know.

I realize you support the NFU. You have been very open and upfront about that. It seems to be me that you are looking increase membership for that organization and one way to do that is to cast aspersions on other major organizations. Hey…its politics and all is fair.

I do not the believe the ABP is perfect any more than I believe the NFU is all wrong. And no organization should try to be all things to all people. Hopefully we are fair about our respective criticisms and generous with our compliments concerning the range of organizations out there which are trying to improve the lot of primary producers. I respect your opinions, the fact that you are actively interested and working on producers behalf as you see best. As well I appreciated a good discussion on free speech.

However it appears to me that you were wrong on this one.

[brian99]

Grassfarmer, good to see your letter being published. What should the format for responses from ABP be? A long winded article in Cattlemen makes the most sense I guess.
I knew ABP was becoming a club, I guess Alberta Beef is as well. Is that how you get your picture in that mag, join the club???

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son,
In case you didn't notice the Alberta Beef magazine is still refusing to publish it so I will stand by my accusation that ABP does attempt to censor media that is not favorable to them. Perhaps the tentacles don't reach as far as Winnipeg.
As you say I have no fear of admitting to being an NFU member - shame ABP reps aren't so forthcoming. And no, I'm not attempting to increase the NFU's membership, like much of their membership I'm too damn busy trying to fight for producers interests whether it be against ABP, the AltaLink powerline project or the oilfield waterflood projects.
The ABP of course doesn't have that problem, being funded lavishly by a compulsory producer checkoff - hence my point in the letter about extending "marketing choice" to the beef industry.

I'm pleased that you enjoy a good discussion on free speech. Shame it doesn't extend to answering my questions above, some of which concerned denying other peoples rights to free speech.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer: I always appreciate your posts and your different way of doing some things. I bet I have even changed the way I do some things on my farm as a result of your sharing how you operate. However on this subject we may have to just disagree.

I have written more than a few Letters to the Editor. It has never occurred to me that if a letter did not get published it was because some one or something had intervened and pressured the publisher not to print my letter. I simply thought the letter was not very good or that the person in charge did not find the issue important or interesting.

I read back and found the questions I think you wanted me to answer. I do not share your sense of, for want of a better word, paranoia on these matters. On some points I agree with Big-C as I agree with you. I personally do not support Big-C on the issue of BSE testing although I know some people do.

The packer inquiry was quite a while back. If you recall, between the time that BSE was discovered and live cattle trade resumed with the U.S. the Canadian cattle industry was in a crisis. Everyone, governments, producer groups, individuals were struggling. Producers are still struggling but 2003-2005 was very, very uncertain. I am looking ahead to the future as Rule 2 is published and will soon be implemented. It is easy to go back and point fingers and say this should have been done or that could have been different (and I wish I had done some things different myself) but the reality was we all got through it as best we could. To get through that period was really a remarkable achievement for the entire industry. I do not see much value on rehashing the past.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son,
So that is a YES to backing the ABP stance on not allowing any discussion or support being given to the BIG_C group despite this being the apparent wish of western producers.

YES to backing the ABP stance of supporting the findings of the packer profiteering "inquiry".

NO COMMENT on supporting their stance on not allowing a leader of another farm producer organisation to attend a press conference revealing those results?

OK at least now you have confirmed your stance. You may call it paranoia but do you remember back when Cam Ostercamp first came into the spotlight with "Behind the Veil of Silence" his first article? The place most of us read it first was on the personal website of Lee Gunnerson, of the Alberta Beef magazine. That was until it was hastily removed - rumor has it on the "suggestion" of a senior ABP official. Whether it was on ABP orders or the magazines owners orders we will never know - but there is enough of a stink there to make me suspicious of both of them.

[farmers_son]

Please do not put words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

I do think you are being a bit too suspicious, without cause. I think the fact that you originally were suspicious of the Cattleman not printing your letter because of some evil plot by the ABP backs up that view. Now the Cattleman magazine is OK but Alberta Beef is a puppet. That line of reasoning just does not hold water. You wrote a letter to the editor, some get printed some do not. That is all there is to it and the sky is not falling.

I can say this discussion has convinced me that the ABP should not print defeated resolutions. Someone with an axe to grind could get a resolution moved and seconded then passed at a fall meeting with only a handful voting for it. The resolution would not get passed the AGM but the deed would be still done. Instead of resolutions being intended to move the industry forward resolutions would become propaganda tools used by whatever was the disgruntled group of the day.

Say grassfarmer...have you stopped beating your wife yet? No? Well it is about time you did.

You get the point.

[grassfarmer]

Whaaaaaaaaaaatttttt?