Censored Article

The article I wrote entitled "Big Flaws in Fr. Celis Arguments" (see previous post) was censored by my editor. It did not saw print nor was it published in its online edition.

We had an exchange of e-mails but in gist, here is what he said "my point is we don't have to refute the personal views of others to bring our message across.. i think fr.boy's pronouncements was his personal view and not as a member of the task force.. i did not say that you have violated journalism ethics, it's just my judgement not to print your article trying to refute specifically the pro-coal arguments of fr. boy.. indi bala entitled man siya to have his own perception about the issue?"

Here are different excerpts from my several emails to him:

"If you read my article it was a respectful opinion. it was not attacking Fr. Celis as a person. The article attacks the argument, not Fr. Celis. I dont have any below the belt attack on the persona of Fr. Celis. He had his views known by using the media, it is just anybody's right to give a different opinion. He is entitled to his opinion but as a columnist, i am also entitled to how i view the issue. "

"What is wrong with a columnist reacting to an article from other paper or sources? And what is wrong if a columnist wants to react to another specific person's viewpoint?

"Fr. Celis is part of the Task Force created by Trenas to evaluate the proposed coal plant. So his statements and public pronouncements of endorsing the coal plant has political implications. Moreso what is wrong with refuting a personal opinion? Like when one refutes or supports another columnist's personal opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. If one of our readers reacts to or refutes my personal opinion, then it is also ok. What is important is we do it in a manner that focuses on the issues and principles."

"As a writer yourself you should know how it will feel to have your piece of writing censored. And when the government suppresses our freedom to express or the independence of the media we are all in one side fighting against it."

Despite all those however he said it was his editorial judgement. So what can i do?