by Bob Owens
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
April 1, 2014 at 9:38 am
Pete Matsko of Backstreets Pub & Grill in Clemson, SC, posted a sign bashing concealed carry permit holders with predicable results.
The New York Times has decided to portray Matsko as a victim, and soft-pedals his insulting sign—which it refuses to show—in order to portray gun owners as bullies.
Pete Matsko expected a little pushback when he posted a sarcastic sign banning concealed weapons from Backstreets Pub & Grill, his beer and burger bar in this college town, but he did not expect to become a national target.
Within weeks, he was slammed with so many online attacks and harassing phone calls that he changed his number and started asking the police to open his mail.
A new concealed-weapons law in South Carolina turned his pub into a battlefield in America’s culture wars. Like an increasing number of bar and restaurant owners around the country, Mr. Matsko discovered that his politics can matter more than what he serves.
Times “journalist” Kim Severson is being patently dishonest.
There are literally thousands of restaurants throughout the South that have posted their businesses with signs barring entry to concealed weapons, and the owners of these establishments have not earned the anger of gun owners for their choices.
What earned Matsko the ire of gun owners is what he said, and how he said it.
Here’s Matsko’s sign that the New York Times refused to show.
Here’s what the NY Times decided to show instead of the actual sign.
Note that in a sleight-of-hand; they show a completely different sign so that someone quickly scanning the article would mistake for Matsko’s sign, and the Times then disguises the insult of Matsko’s sign in the text below.
We have to wonder why the New York Times felt compelled to deceive their readers about what Matsko said that upset so many people. A logical person might conclude that the intent of the Severson piece is to convince that gun owners acted unreasonably towards Matsko’s provocation.
We could just as easily ask Severson and the Times why, if the reaction to Matsko’s sign was unreasonable, that they felt compelled to hide the actual sign from their readers.
It’s almost as if the paper of Walter Duranty is more interested in pedaling propaganda than telling the truth.