By MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ
Managing Editor
editor@sbnewspaper.com
No Color?
Michael Rodriguez
Mechanical complications associated with the printing press prevented the San Benito News from publishing its Wednesday, Oct. 29 mid-week edition in color.
The production crew has been working tirelessly to resolve the problem as color capabilities are being restored. Unfortunately, it was necessary to print the Oct. 29 edition in black and white, and the quality suffered as a result. The News apologizes for any inconvenience this may have caused our readers.
Understand that the newspaper was initially intended to feature a commemorative front page covering the San Benito High School Mighty Greyhound Band’s achievement of ranking second place at the UIL Area competition – the band’s highest-ever ranking at Area and tops among any other Rio Grande Valley high school, not to mention qualifying San Benito for State competition a second consecutive time.
Note that the News aims to reprint Wednesday’s front page in full color within the Nov. 5 or Nov. 9 edition.
Until then, please be patient as we continue to resolve these complications. Our readers can expect the News to continue providing vibrant and colorful front pages, commemorative posters and special sections we’ve long been known to produce.
However, remember that all issues are viewable in full color via our e-Edition, accessible by visiting www.sbnewspaper.com.
In the meantime, be advised that although not prevalent, instances of color misalignment may continue to occur.
True Colors?
Judge Oscar X. Garcia knows a thing or two about lacking color. The incumbent candidate in the Nov. 4 election for the 357th State District judgeship was vague, repetitive and combative when responding to my questions about a letter he faxed us on Tuesday.
Know that in no way were my inquiries accusatory; in fact, it was Garcia who accused the News and our sister publication, the Port Isabel-South Padre Press, of publishing a “libelous attack ad” from his opponent, Juan Magallanes.
Without rehashing what we already reported on the front page of this edition, Garcia took issue with Magallanes’ ad for stating that the judge did not follow the law when not requiring defendants convicted of sexual abuse of children to register as a sex offender. Magallanes said he has the court records to prove it, Garcia denies it. And blah, blah, it’s election time, y’all.
Still, my intention for reaching out to the judge was rooted in understanding his logic with regard to how exactly he was of the opinion that Magallanes’ advertisement constituted libel. When he deflected and began repeating talking points (I might as well have skipped calling him and quoted the judge straight from his advertisements linking Magallanes to Abel Limas), I attempted to formulate the question another way.
Prefacing, I said that conjecture present in one of Garcia’s ads was similar to what he deemed libelous in his opponent’s ad, so how was what Magallanes did any different?
Garcia’s response was to begin reminding me how Magallanes gave Limas, the disgraced former 404th State District Judge currently serving a 72-month prison sentence for racketeering, a $30,000 loan. He went on and on about how this was all documented in federal court transcripts and heavily covered in other local newspapers – as if I had somehow disputed this…or as if it was somehow in relation to the question I posed.
Sigh.
You disappointed me, Judge Garcia. As with anyone who takes office in post-cash-for-court-favors Cameron County, I had high hopes. Win or lose on Tuesday, remember that you serve not just a justice system still healing from wounds inflicted by Limas and his convicted cohorts, but its people by extension. That means you answer to us, and if your reaction to simple questions in response to bold statements you made is to ignore a reporter’s questions before abruptly terminating the call (like a child), then you’re in danger of showing your true colors. Prove me wrong by communicating professionally the next time we speak.
Recent Comments