Your blogmeister will be tied up for most of the morning on partisan political business, so we'll turn the floor over to our readers to set the tone for this morning's discussion with whatever topics float your boats.
And just to get everyone into the spirit, howbout this Standard-Examiner story, for starters? Seems like a week doesn't go by without someone from the Davis County GOP landing in "hot water." [wink]:
• Weber seizes computers / Campaign vendor for Davis candidate investigated over emailWho will be the first to lead the discussion within this morning's open topic thread?
Have at it, O Gentle Ones.
23 comments:
I finally got fed up with the Standard-Examiner's blogs and posted the following comment under recent entries from Shenefelt, Gibson, and Trentelman:
As you know, the Standard-Examiner front page highlights this site’s ten most recent blog posts. As of this morning, these blog posts deal almost exclusively with national and state-wide issues. The only local political issue mentioned (in passing) is a pair of potholes in South Ogden. There’s also a very brief blog post about a local sports figure.
So I’m getting the impression that you bloggers at the local paper would rather be working for the Trib or the Times (in Doug Gibson’s case, that’s the Washington Times). That’s fine, but who’s gonna cover the local news? You can’t leave it all to half-assed amateurs like me and RudiZink!
Ah, Davis County Republicans. They were hoping to put all that hot tubbin' nekkid with teenagers and paying hush money and DUI stuff behind them at their convention, and before the opening gavel fell, yet another Davis County Republican scandal lights up the front pages of the local mullet wrapper, our very own Standard Examiner.
Watching Davis Country Republican politics these days is like watching COPS on TV: a new episode every week....
Dan,
To paraphrase the old movie line:
"We're the newspaper. We don't care. We don't have to."
Sorry, Dan, but you're off base on this one. These are blogs, intended I think to provide staffers with an outlet for personal comments on topics that happen to have caught their attention. The SE blogs do not cover news, nor I think are the intended to.
And, having just looked over the list, you have I think a very limited definition of what constitutes a topic of "local" concern.
Let's look at the ten up now: (1) On Stupak, definitely national. (2) Doug on General Conference --- not a subject I'm much interested in, but definitely a local focus. (3)VAT tax, national focus. (4) Toone going pro story. You may not be much interested in sports, Dan, but many others are, and this is definitely a local interest story. (5) MS on 10 reason to become politically active. Applies as much locally as nationally. (6) Tea Party comments. Mostly national focus, but here in benighted Zion, anything about Tea Parties has a local/state hook as well. (7) McCain a Maverick? National. (8) Conservative Mormon generates comment. Both local/state and national focus. (9) Utah first voted for Dem pres. Local/state, focus. (10) 10 reasons not to become politically active --- as in five above, applies locally as well as nationally.
Seems like a fairly eclectic mix to me, given that the blog posts are not assigned topics on which the bloggers comment, but reflect their own personal choice regarding what they want to discuss at the moment... much as your blog does, Dan.
Past blog posts from staffers not up at the moment have included comments on the PETA march in Morgan [local], and on wholly non-"political" topics, like vegan cookery, etc.
Slam the SE for dodging the difficult stories locally in its news columns and editorials, and I'm with you, since it too often has. Way too often.
But the staff blogs? Again, the topics are not assigned by editors [so far as I know] and reflect the momentary whim/preference/irritation of the blogger involved. And should. That those whims/preferences/irritations don't always, or even often, match your own [or mine] is beside the point.
Curm:
I think my comment was pretty clear that I was drawing a line between "national and state-wide issues" on one hand, and "local issues" on the other hand. But I'll try to be even clearer, since you apparently didn't understand: By "local issues", I mean issues that are specific to the circulation area of the Standard-Examiner, namely the Top o' Utah from Davis County northward. I don't mean issues that are "local" to the State of Utah, or to Mormondom, or to the Tea-Partying West.
I never said anything about what may and may not be of local "concern" (your word, not mine). Of course folks in the local area are concerned about abortion and taxes and McCain and Bennett and General Conference and Utah history. But they're no more concerned about these things than folks in Provo.
If I want to read blogs on national politics, I can go to a hundred other places on the web. If I want to read blogs on Utah politics (or religion), I can likewise go to dozens of other places. And significantly, I can find plenty of other bloggers who have more expertise on these issues than Shenefelt, Gibson, or Trentelman.
The fact that these blogs are somewhat segregated from the paper's more formal content doesn't seem relevant to me. It's all supported financially by the same news company to which I pay a monthly subscription fee. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer that a little more of that fee go to support writing about local stuff, rather than writing about the same stuff that dozens, or hundreds, of other bloggers are writing about.
As for the local sports article, I specifically mentioned it as a noteworthy exception. In fact I could point out other ways in which the media do a better job covering sports than they do covering politics or other news.
Incidentally, do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you start of a post with "Sorry, xxx"?
Dan
For your information that is his first name.
Full name - Mr. Condescending Alwaysright Curmudgeon. Some folks just know him as CAC.
The thing that is most gagging is that he always is right, or almost anyway. Dontcha just hate people like that!
oz,
I agree that he's always right--except when he disagrees with me.
Dan:
Here I think is the nub of our disagreement on this:
The fact that these blogs are somewhat segregated from the paper's more formal content doesn't seem relevant to me.
Does to me. The SE's problems lie in its news coverage and editorial stands on some local [Ogden] matters -- or its lack of coverage. Its staff blogs are not intended as places to break stories, or cover news, but as chances for staff to comment on a variety of matters, and to invite others to reply. Different purpose.
Sorry if you took "Sorry, Dan" to be condescending. Wasn't meant to be [and I'm puzzled why you thought it was]. We agree on WCF on most things, and I am sorry to see that we disagree on those rare occasions when we do. If you would just agree with me all the time, as of course you should, we could avoid these little misunderstandings.
AHA!
I have it figured out - Mr. Curmedgeon is the true Narcissistic Personality - always all-knowing and always RIGHT but not in his politics--
Curm:
I think we agree that there are some problems with the S-E's news coverage and editorial stands, especially on local issues. But in that regard, my gripe (and, I think, yours) is not that they devote a disproportionate amount of space to state and national issues. So in case there was any confusion, my present criticism of the S-E is unrelated to that other, more important, criticism.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion on the proper content of the S-E blog department. Likewise, I would have hoped that you would respect my opinion on what the content should be, rather than telling me that I'm "off base" as if this were a matter of fact, not opinion.
I'll try to persuade you a little more, though, by adding this: Each of these blog entries gets almost as much space on the S-E home page as a typical news article, and the blog entries remain on the home page much longer (usually over a week).
Perhaps we should distinguish here between the individual S-E bloggers (Shenefelt, Gibson, Trentelman) and the policy of the S-E management. My impression is that management gives these bloggers a lot of freedom in choosing what to blog about. How much freedom exactly, I don't know--but I can see the value in this. What I find odd is that there's nobody at the S-E who chooses to blog primarily about local issues, other than sports. I'd speculate that management would like to have such a blogger, but there just isn't anyone there who wants to do it.
Some preliminary results of the WCRC can be found here:
http://www.fromwhereisitblog.com/2010/04/live-voting-results.html
Dan:
I'd love it if the SE had a Rolly & Wells column [and blog] devoted to digging up dirt on Ogden politicos of all stripes and discussing it. Ogden is woefully short of journalist muckrakers these days -- but then, so is the Trib. [The last Utah muckrakers work for The City Weekly, it seems. ] Maybe we could suggest they consider adding a Rolly & Wells team to the staff, but in these parlous times of declining ads and staff cutting, I doubt it will.
One thing puzzles me, Dan, about your latest post This:
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion on the proper content of the S-E blog department. Likewise, I would have hoped that you would respect my opinion on what the content should be, rather than telling me that I'm "off base" as if this were a matter of fact, not opinion.
Clearly, if I disagree with you about the SE's content mix, I think you're wrong, just as if you disagree with me about it, you think I'm wrong. What I don't understand is why you consider my saying I think you're wrong adds up to "not respecting your opinion." I don't want to quibble about semantics, but I see no real difference between "I think you're wrong about that" and "I think you're off base on that." Six of one, half dozen of the other.
From my POV, respecting your opinion [or the opinion of anyone else here who posts] means, if I think it's wrong, offering reasons why I think so, which I did. Just as you replied with reasons you think my opinion's wrong on this.
In my view, not respecting someone's opinion means dismissing their post with something like this [to quote the great American philosopher, Groucho Marx], "that's the silliest thing I ever hoid." Period.
I never fail to take your opinions seriously, Dan, Whether I agree with them or not.
Live link to the site Humble Public Servant posted above is here.
Curm:
To clarify once again, I wasn't specifically saying there should be a S-E blog devoted to Ogden political muckraking. I was merely expressing disappointment that S-E bloggers devote so little space to any sort of issues (other than sports) that are local to their circulation area (which of course covers much more than just Ogden). Naturally I'd love it if they had a blog devoted to Ogden political muckraking--but that seems too much to ask.
If you're truly puzzled at my reaction to your original "Sorry, Dan" post, then all you have to do is go back and read it. You didn't say "I think you're wrong", much less "I have a different opinion". You said, "Sorry, Dan, but you're off base on this one." You then distorted what I had actually said (e.g., conflating state-wide matters with local matters, and changing "local issues" to "local concern"). If you want to respect others' opinions, you should offer reasons why you hold a different opinion from the one they actually hold, not why you hold a different opinion from something that they never even said.
OK, Dan. Enough. If I misread the import of your original post, my apologies. On the matter of the SE blogs, we'll have to agree to disagree and let it go at that.
Do not argue with Curm.
Curm rarely if ever changes his mind.
He is a liberal Democrat.
He does not believe in God.
He holds the boobs at the local paper in a certain reverence, for he envies them.
Do not engage him on matters. He has interesting comments at times, but he does not think outside his box.
But we do like having him around nonetheless.
Well it has been said in good times past, That once you're a dead politician, then you are a dead politician. Today we would reverantly bow our head that the Dead Politician is Jesse Garcia. He lost his council race and now he has lost his house race to the Person we know as the only one not to give a standing ovation to a pedophile. Rep. Neil Hansen will now get a super ovation from me. Because he is the change in the house that we will be looking to for the future.
Sorry Jesse and now we will put daises on your head stone. When you lose twice it is time to move on to retirement from politics.
Danny,
For the record, I consider your allegations against Curm irrelevant to the argument that he and I just had.
Regardless, most of the supposed criticism read like a compliment, to some eyes.
Obama 2012!
We stand for PEDOPHILES!!!
We stand for PEDOPHILES!!!
Comment moved to new article
Comment bumped to front page
Post a Comment