This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The story about a Provo-based automaker being banned from the recent Utah International Auto Expo makes for an interesting case study about independent journalism and the advertisers it relies on for revenue.
The Salt Lake Tribune ran the story about Vanderhall Motor Works, which had been granted space in the Sandy auto show, having its booth walled off so visitors couldn't see it.
The reason: The company sells its cars directly to consumers without going through dealerships. Utah law requires auto manufacturers to sell their cars through franchised dealerships.
It marked the latest episode in the flap between local automobile associations and custom-made roadster manufacturers that don't sell enough cars to justify building large brick-and-mortar dealerships.
Fox 13 also reported Vanderhall's ouster from the auto show. But soon after the story aired, it was removed from the TV station's website.
Vanderhall executives wondered what happened to the story and were told meetings were taking place between the station and the New Car Dealers of Utah association.
Fox 13 news director Marc Sternfield said nobody told the station to scrub the story from the website. He said the station doesn't always post stories it airs online, and he didn't know why that story was missing.
Fair enough. It should be noted that Fox aired the story. I also know great pressure can be applied on news organizations from large corporate groups that spend millions on advertising — the lifeblood of independent news outlets.
When it has happened to me and my editors, we weathered the storm.
'Little' women, big blind spot • I couldn't help chuckling over the quote from Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, during floor debate about a bill that would require businesses to accommodate breast-feeding mothers at the workplace.
Sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, the measure passed the Senate, but not without strong objections from Jenkins, a small-business owner.
Jenkins noted that he has a "little secretary who works for me" who sometimes brings her infant to the office and puts the child on a blanket.
"We all walk around him and stumble over his toys," he said. "It's very intrusive."
After Weiler explained that the baby would not have to be in the office and that mothers could simply pump their breast milk and store it in the refrigerator, Jenkins retorted: "OK, they're gonna do, what I called, and what my wife called 'milking'?"
But when it comes to accommodating Jenkins' wife, things are different.
When Jenkins was Senate majority leader in 2012, his wife, Becky, hosted a sales presentation for a magic cleaning cloth for other senators' wives, whom she dubbed "Senate sisters" in her invitation.
The sales presentation was held in the Senate Rules Committee room during the Legislature's interim committee day that August.
So some "little women" are more deserving of accommodation, it seems, than other "little women."
Constitutionalists? • The Legislature already has approved a measure demanding that the federal government transfer 31 million acres of public land to the state and is poised to OK spending up to $14 million to sue the feds for that turf.
But wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?
Here's what Article III of the Utah Constitution says: "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States."
When taking their oaths of office, didn't our legislators swear to uphold both the U.S. and Utah constitutions?