And to me, it wouldn't be so awful if you just owned a paper in north Jackson that specializes in party pics and old-white-guy conservative commentary for white conservatives. But you own newspapers in some of the poorest and least white parts of the state. And you do bogus junk like that welfare chart of yours to push the notion that the poverty is their own fault and to help whites feel OK about not supporting policies to help systemically reverse the legacies of our past. I find it all incredibly irresponsible and such a waste of good newsprint and ink. Why? Because I know h ow much good you could do if you had the will.

And not to correct your facts yet again, but my column about it appeared 11 days after you published the prize-winning column. I don't know why you keep trying to changing the timeline; it doesn't matter a whit. It was what it was, no matter when I criticized it.

Understand, Wyatt, as much as I wish you'd use your presses and influence to do more good right here in Mississippi, I'm not trying to change you. I will, however, continue to use every chance I get to talk about what I consider very important issues. And I will never give into attempts to reinstate that damn code of silence about race that so many white Mississippians shared in our past, the one that said that we never call out racism because it's somehow a way of being a traitor. I just don't play that game. And I hear from many more readers of all races that they prefer a more open state now where we can talk about these things. And so many people who visit and read our site from other places find it refreshing that we have the kinds of conversations here that they don't expect to see from Mississippians.

So you continue with your old-school ways, and I'll stay with my newfangled ones that work much better in the 21st century and with readers who want diversity to be a part of everyday life. It's time to stop living in the past; you hang out there all you want, but we don't roll that way.

Thanks for posting the racist 2004 column again, Wyatt. I'm sure you know that I posted a readable image of it above, right, that includes the prize part. [Here it is again][1]. Anyone can see that it's a meandering piece with lots of innocuous comments with lots of stinker comments in between like the idea that renaming the airport after Medgar is pouring "acid" in old wounds, that that bogus slavery excuse has anything to do with anything we're talking about and, of course, the zinger that blacks should give thanks for slavery. It's all there. The fact that he mentions restaurants does not take away from the fact that he said those things and that you, then, gave a prize for "insightful commentary" -- and that you have never tried to tell your own readers that it was a mistake, just mine.

And, no, I have never said that fixing our racial wounds are just about talking more about race. It's much harder that that, but it sure as hell takes more than not talking about the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and crap like you published in 2004 that makes white people feel all superior to all those other people who can't just shut up and be grateful that they're here with all these chances. Whether or not you regretted it, you fed racist, nefarious notions by putting crap like that out there and calling it "insightful." It was just one more way to tell whites who feel superior already that it's OK, that they're right. Do you realize that? Clearly not. Is that because you don't have these kinds of frank conversations enough with people much wiser than I could ever be about it? Probably.

[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/users/p…

Also, this thread lighting up again reminds me to post Ronni Mott's wonderful column that she wrote in response to the above debate with Wyatt Emmerich:

[Notes from the Fishbowl][1]

[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

Your last post says it all, Wyatt. I'm astounded at your hubris there. You really do think very poorly of your readers. You don't think any white person other than Donna Ladd and maybe Ronni Mott would be offended by you giving a prize to a column that said blacks should give thanks every day for slavery. That is breathtaking contempt for your readers, the people of Jackson and how far we've come in 50 years.

Not to mention, you're factually wrong again. The "JFP brouhaha" was not months or years later. It was actually [an Aug. 4, 2004, column I wrote in response to your prize-winner (published July 22, 2004)][1] 11 days after the offensive column appeared. So, yes, it would have made perfect sense to apologize to your readers and the city of Jackson for not bothering to even read such an offensive column before you gave it a prize for "insightful commentary."

Facts matter, Wyatt, and you have been very loose with them in this thread.

I'll also offer a bit of advice, Wyatt: Don't write columns saying talking about race is a bad thing and making offensive statement about what who is "blacker" proves, and folks might just forget this offensive race stuff you've published in the past. If not, all bets are off.

[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

Wyatt, I've said already that I see what you were *trying* to do: make an argument that it was about ideology. But you didn't make it well -- and spent a whole column talking about race after saying it was a bad thing. And opening with what I have above: about "blacker." Come on, Wyatt. Do you really not see how that is offensive on its face, not to mention illogical. You have to know enough about history -- Harvard ??? -- to know that white people have used people of color throughout our history to do racist stuff. (Again, not saying that was the case with Lee.) Your statement made it sound like you have no clue about our race history!

And, sure, there are lines in that that don't sound bad when taken out of context. They sound nice, in fact. But you have them surrounded with privilege-soaked admonishments about how talking about race is "not a good thing" and idiotic statements about how it can't be about race because most people supported the blacker candidate. And you say nothing about the racist explosions that occurred when Lumumba was elected. THAT was about race, Wyatt. And a lot of ideology came from our race history, too. As Ronni says, that may be hard to see when you're swimming in the dirty fishbowl, but it doesn't make it false. It just means you refuse to see it.

Actually, I don't have a "strict set of ideological standards" that any contributor must meet. That is an unfactual statement about my newspaper, although I'll assume you say it out of ignorance rather than malice. One of my favorite reporters ever was a very smart evangelical with different views on many things. I am continually looking for columnists with a variety of viewpoints -- but their facts have to stand up to factchecks, which weeds the list down quite a bit. I've turned down columns left and right because they call the other party or ideology by names (such as your columnists you have attacked us in the past with name-calling).

It's been absolutely true (and truer than I expected) that the "conservative" columnists I get who can withstand factchecking tend to agree with Todd and me on a lot of issues ultimately (we like to say we're libertarian until it gets stupid and mean) -- because the truth is, you cut away all the B.S. ideology and partisan crap, and most people tend to fall into a similar space.

Finally, as much as I admire your Malawi work, there is much to be done in the Mississippi Delta. I hope your newspapers will lead the way to defeating poverty, bridging racial divides, promoting diversity and helping people change perceptions about themselves and each other. As a (presumably) profitable newspaperman, I hope you take that responsibility very seriously.

There is nothing "provincial" about saying that we have the responsibility to help our little postage stamp of the world, as Faulkner put it. And if we're as successful as you seem to be, then perhaps a little Thinking Global and Helping Local would go a long way to strengthening the communities that your businesses thrive in.

And here's the big thing, which I seem to remember saying to you a few years back: If you realized (thanks to us) that the prize for the column you say you didn't actually read is so offensive, why didn't you apologize for it in the pages where it appeared? Your paper? Do you assume that your readership is racist enough not to be offended by that statement, or might even believe it's true? I have many readers in northeast Jackson of all races, and I assume that to a person they know how awful it was to give that column a prize. This isn't 1964, and many people have actually changed, Wyatt, including whites. Why don't you treat them like it and talk up to them, rather than than assume the worst about them?

Of course, we make mistakes, too (although never for giving a prize to a column for such a thing). And you know what? We correct our mistakes where we make them and make a big deal out of it. It's what our code of ethics requires, and it's what our readers expect. I dare say that if you meant the apology, you would put it in your own paper -- and not try to present it as something else entirely as you did in posts above this one until I posted photos showing the truth.

In other words, your excuses just sound like excuses, especially in light of what you wrote in that column a couple weeks ago. And, frankly, I think those attitudes (and your welfare "math") are dangerous, coming from a man who owns newspapers throughout the state and in some of the poorest areas of the nation: the Mississippi Delta. You are an example to your readers: a successful businessman who attended an Ivy League college. We should hold you to a higher standard than just acting like people in the Delta are poor due to their own laziness or that it's "not a good thing" that Mississippians try to have conversations about race, even as others try to drown us out and belittle us.

I believe all Mississippians must hold each other to a higher standard if we want to lift our state up and shed the chains of our past. I grew up around people who wouldn't face their own stuff, refused to talk about race, belittled those who did and blamed it all on someone else. I am a Mississippian who is not willing to do that any longer. The column you gave a prize to nine years ago was disgusting, and the column you wrote two weeks ago was naive and race-baiting. And I don't mind telling you that in public, being that you opened up this conversation. I believe you can do better, and I urge you to. Blaming us for daring to talk about these things is not going to change any of it or keep us from bringing up that prize-winning column in the future if it has an inkling of a chance of addressing ignorance.

Wyatt, not much time over here, but here's the thing. You just wrote a column that began:

> "The election of Chokwe Lumumba as the
> Democratic nominee for Jackson mayor
> has got everybody talking about race.
> That's not a good thing. If I'm not
> mistaken, white Republican northeast
> Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the
> blacker of the two candidates. So
> exactly how can this be about race?"

Do you honestly think you could write those two sentences and then be offended that someone brings up the fact that the same "publisher" who wrote that gave a prize to a man who wrote that blacks should give thanks every day for slavery for "insightful commentary" (and for saying that the Jackson airport shouldn't be named for Medgar) -- nine years ago? You may not be able to see it, but a man who allowed that prize to happen who then a few years later says that we shouldn't (a) talk about race and (b) argues that it can't be racist if whites voter for the "blacker" candidate is being mighty hypocritical on the subject of racial progress. The really big thing is that you clearly assume that your mostly white readership won't be offended by you saying any of it.

The same week, we re-ran my column about Charles Evers meeting Bob Dylan that I wrote 10 years ago, and it is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago. And I'm still proud of that piece, as I am most of my editor's notes, as well as editorial decisions and news judgement.

You clearly steer a different kind of ship over there. We don't give prizes for columns, but we do *read* them. We also edit them, factcheck them and choose columns that, for instance, do not say that slavery was somehow a good thing. And neither our publisher or anyone on the advertising side even knows what our stories say before they go to press (other than Todd writing a publisher's note) because that's an ethical breach, as I'm sure you know.

(I'm tempted here to bring up the irony of you serving as the chairman of the Mississippi Press Association board that won't allow the JFP to be a member, and compete for awards and use syndicated content, because we distribute free, even though the Northside Sun does as well. Even though we actually factcheck our stories and don't allow stories to be sold to advertisers and various other ethical breaches that we hear that certain MPA members allow. Talk about hypocrisy.)

Thanks, justjess! And it funny you mention that eBook that I had to put off (due to election). It's almost done, and now that the new Boom is the printer (and I've survived the Great Spring Crud, I plan to return to it today. I have a new one to do right behind it, so I need to put it to bed.

Thanks for the inspiration!

kdavis, all the campaign finance reports are available at jfp.ms/documents.