Share this article:
Print

LEO magazines go missing after controversial report

Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

by Chase Cain

Posted on November 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Updated Thursday, Nov 19 at 12:12 AM

******

LEO Weekly writes a controversial cover story and their magazine starts disappearing. That's the situation the free publication faced late last week.

A well-known conservation group "River Fields" has been caught up in it, accused of taking LEOs off the stands.

The issue, out last Wednesday, wasn't very friendly to River Fields, one of the main groups that has been fighting the East End Bridge. Leo Weekly interviewed River Fields for the story but also dove into the way the powerful group works, and what happened next proved someone didn't like it.

"We got a phone call on Thursday morning saying LEOs seem to be disappearing in vast numbers," recalls Stephen George. He doesn't usually deal with mysteries as editor of LEO Weekly. Last week, copies of the magazine's issue called "Burned Bridge" went missing by the hundreds.

LEO says they're not talking about people coming by and taking 2 copies of the magazine or even 4 or 5 at a time. They say that in the stands that got hit, someone literally wiped out every single copy available.

"And we got a tip that it had been someone associated with River Fields. Then we got another tip about that," Stephen told WHAS11, and the tips didn't surprise him because LEO’s cover story didn't put River Fields in a very good light especially regarding the group's opposition to the East End Bridge.

River Fields wouldn't talk to us on-camera about the allegations.

The group’s attorney Robert Griffith responded via email saying, "The charge that River Fields has stolen a free publication is frivolous, false, and an attempt to draw an esteemed community organization into a pointless and sophomoric debate. Whatever the real purpose of the false accusation might be, it's certainly not to get at the truth."

Stephen George also feels strongly about the missing magazines, "It suggests to me that they're trying to strong-arm the press. It was a critical story. The story was very critical of River Fields. That's part of what we do as journalists."

Despite threats of a lawsuit, Stephen published an editorial about the swiped magazines in the latest issue. LEO even temporarily changed its cost on this week’s cover from "Priceless" to "Notoriously Free."

"It's very serious. It's very serious to us that someone is trying to block what is essentially the first amendment rights to all of us to have a voice,” Stephen believes.

River Fields also paid for a full page ad in the latest issue of LEO Weekly. The group responds to last week's report, accusing the magazine of name-calling.

Read the original controversial article: Burned Bridge by Steve Shaw

Read the editorial: Editor's Note by Stephen George

Share this article:
Print

To add a comment, please register or login.

Leave your comment
1000 characters remaining

Submit

Remember Please be respectful of others when posting comments. Play nice. IP addresses are logged and can be banned.

HTML is not allowed.

thekid said on November 19, 2009 at 2:37 AM

we leo readers know who took the papers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chungking said on November 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Just go ahead and building bridges and to hades with what the special interests and advocacy groups think. No wonder Louisville has such bad traffic congestion for a city of 700000

purecountry said on November 19, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Several years ago in Jeffersontown a man who had lived in his home for years was forced to move so Blankenbaker could be built. They called it imminent domain I think. In the end he had movers turn the home sideways on the property but his yard is smaller due to a road being on it. He wasn't a wealthy person like the ones in Prospect area complaining about the bridge. If it is fine to force the "little guy" out then I see no reason why the state can't force these people out. Their yards are no more important than a lower income person with a home in a less nice neighborhood. They don't impress me at all. I say build the bridge and alleviate traffic downtown.

stevemagruder said on November 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Correction: "River Fields, one of the main groups that has been fighting the East End Bridge" is not accurate. River Fields is the _only_ group that has been fighting this bridge.

gtownviewer said on November 19, 2009 at 11:23 PM

This is one step up from merely taking their toys and going home.