Fishing for the Enquirer Weekly
So, how often do you get invited to mingle with the Staff from the Enquirer and many other young professionals at a very exclusive downtown club for drinks and high-class eats? Well, this was a first for me. I am not one to hobnob with the influential all in the name of trying to decipher the form of the Enquirer's soon to debut weekly publication geared toward Generation X. I felt like a fish out of water. I am not a social person. I can tend to be a recluse when not dragged out kicking and screaming by friends and family.
My purpose in attending was, along with many others, to provide some feedback to the Enquirer Staff with ideas on what I think their new publication should be, or should focus on. I was able to provide my thoughts to one reporter, but beyond the hosts from the Enquirer, I was not quizzed by any other Enquirer staffers. I did not notice many staffers mingling with the civilians much at all. I was left thinking that either the staff does not think much of the new publication or they are as clueless as I am as how to attract a mass audience of under 35 year old readers, and still make money doing it.
I did have a nice time. There were nice people there, several of which I chatted with, and free drinks can never be a negative. I did feel a bit over my head. I am not a socialite in the least, so rubbing elbows with city council members and owners of trendy nightclubs is just not my style. I have nothing against the people at the party, per see, I just would feel far more comfortable drinking a pitcher of beer at Crowley’s in Mt. Adams singing along with the jukebox at the top of my feeble lungs, all while theorizing on the value of infinity v. the subplots of Slaughterhouse Five.
Who will staff the new publication? Well I would say that the recently hired new young writers will make up the core of the writing staff. No information on the editor was announced or even discussed. Speculation was that the Enquirer would go outside the organization to find one, but depending on the independence of the publication, one might not need a separate editor. The editing duties could just fall upon on of the existing editors all ready on staff, in addition to their current responsibilities. What would add work is the level of local content the publication seeks to provide. This is key to its success. If they just recycle wire reports or syndicated articles as the core of the stories, with just a sprinkling of new content, then it will be nothing they can’t get on the Internet. The web should be a component of the publication. A “Dead Tree” publication has value, but will remain stale without a unique web presence.
Will the Enquirer Weekly amount to anything? I don't really know. I don't know what it is going after. Do they just want to sell advertising to Gen X targeted vendors (the Starbucks crowd) or do they want to pull in the intellectuals? I say intellectuals in the sense of those who are more concerned with ideas, and less concerned with image. I was at a gathering today of image makers, not idea makers, and image might sell like hotcakes, but will it will taste like cardboard.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
More Burning Recall Questions?
In this week’s Burning Questions article from CityBeat Stephanie Dunlap writes about the methods in Ohio to remove Mayor Luken and Governor Taft from Office. In this article Stephanie states that the recall procedure never made it to the Ohio Revised Code or Cincinnati Charter. I agree this is the case for governor, but not for elected officers of municipal corporations, which I believe includes Cincinnati. The Ohio Revised Code § 705.92 “Procedure for removal by recall” appears to provide such procedures where elected municipal officials could be removed from office by the voters of the same municipality. The code section reads as follows:
ORC § 3.07 and 3.08 do cover the removal of office procedures for all officers which covers the means described in the CityBeat article. Those procedures still apply, but this above procedure would not be in conflict.
Now I have to once again notify you that I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the law is above average for the layman, but I am not infallible. My study of the ORC and Cincinnati Charter indicate that this law would allow a recall process for Mayor Luken, or any City Council member. I invite any lawyers out there to set me straight if I am wrong.
On the issue of whether Luken should be recalled, that is a complicated issue. Gray Davis should not be recalled. Under this law he would not be eligible to be recalled, since he has not served 1 year in the current term of governor. Luken would be open to recall at this point. Luken's actions regarding Issue 5 are enough for some to want him out. I can understand the anger and frustration. Kowtowing to the FOP is nothing but a political ploy for Luken, who is disliked by the GOP controlled FOP leadership as much as the boycott groups. Recall petitions are really not wise long-term choices, because you don't know whom you will get place of the person you want out. Thankfully, this law is not easy to execute. The requirements are much higher than California's recall law. 15% for recall and 10% to get on the ballot is vastly more difficult than what the foes of Davis faced. Luken has no fear of being booted from office, except in November of 2005.
In this week’s Burning Questions article from CityBeat Stephanie Dunlap writes about the methods in Ohio to remove Mayor Luken and Governor Taft from Office. In this article Stephanie states that the recall procedure never made it to the Ohio Revised Code or Cincinnati Charter. I agree this is the case for governor, but not for elected officers of municipal corporations, which I believe includes Cincinnati. The Ohio Revised Code § 705.92 “Procedure for removal by recall” appears to provide such procedures where elected municipal officials could be removed from office by the voters of the same municipality. The code section reads as follows:
§ 705.92 Procedure for removal by recall.Under this section Mayor Luken could be recalled by the voters of Cincinnati if 12,937 registered voters residents of Cincinnati signed a petition under the above rules. The 12,937 comes from 86,249 x 15% rounded up, where 86,249 was the total votes for mayor in 2001.
Any elective officer of a municipal corporation may be removed from office by the qualified voters of such municipal corporation. The procedure to effect such removal shall be:
(A) A petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election, and demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the board of elections. Such petition shall contain a general statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds upon which the removal of such person is sought. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws.
(B) If the petition is sufficient, and if the person whose removal is sought does not resign within five days after the sufficiency of the petition has been determined, the legislative authority * shall thereupon order and fix a day for holding an election to determine the question of the removal of the elective officer, and for the selection of a successor to each officer named in said petition. Such election shall be held not less than thirty nor more than forty days from the time of the finding of the sufficiency of such petition. The election authorities shall publish notice and make all arrangements for holding such election, which shall be conducted and the result thereof returned and declared in all respects as are the results of regular municipal elections.
(C) The nomination of candidates to succeed each officer sought to be removed shall be made, without the intervention of a primary election, by filing with the election authorities, at least twenty days prior to such special election, a petition proposing a person for each such office, signed by electors equal in number to ten per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election for the head of the ticket.
(D) The ballots at such recall election shall, with respect to each person whose removal is sought, submit the question: "Shall (name of person) be removed from the office of (name of office) by recall?"
Immediately following each such question, there shall be printed on the ballots, the two propositions in the order set forth:
"For the recall of (name of person)."
"Against the recall of (name of person)."
Immediately to the left of the proposition shall be placed a square in which the electors may vote for either of such propositions.
Under each of such questions shall be placed the names of candidates to fill the vacancy. The name of the officer whose removal is sought shall not appear on the ballot as a candidate to succeed the officer's self.
In any such election, if a majority of the votes cast on the question of removal are affirmative, the person whose removal is sought shall be removed from office upon the announcement of the official canvass of that election, and the candidate receiving the plurality of the votes cast for candidates for that office shall be declared elected. The successor of any person so removed shall hold office during the unexpired term of the successor's predecessor. The question of the removal of any officer shall not be submitted to the electors until such officer has served for at least one year of the term during which he is sought to be recalled. The method of removal provided in this section, is in addition to such other methods as are provided by law. If, at any such recall election, the incumbent whose removal is sought is not recalled, the incumbent shall be repaid the incumbent's actual and legitimate expenses for such election from the treasury of the municipal corporation, but such sum shall not exceed fifty per cent of the sum that the incumbent is by law permitted to expend as a candidate at any regular municipal election.
HISTORY: GC § 3515-71; 103 v 767(785), Const Art VII, § 2; Bureau of Code Revision, 10-1-53; 146 v H 99. Eff 8-22-95.
* So in enrolled bill, division (B). The word "authority" appears in previous versions but was not officially struck out in HB 99 (146 v --), eff 8-22-95.
ORC § 3.07 and 3.08 do cover the removal of office procedures for all officers which covers the means described in the CityBeat article. Those procedures still apply, but this above procedure would not be in conflict.
Now I have to once again notify you that I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the law is above average for the layman, but I am not infallible. My study of the ORC and Cincinnati Charter indicate that this law would allow a recall process for Mayor Luken, or any City Council member. I invite any lawyers out there to set me straight if I am wrong.
On the issue of whether Luken should be recalled, that is a complicated issue. Gray Davis should not be recalled. Under this law he would not be eligible to be recalled, since he has not served 1 year in the current term of governor. Luken would be open to recall at this point. Luken's actions regarding Issue 5 are enough for some to want him out. I can understand the anger and frustration. Kowtowing to the FOP is nothing but a political ploy for Luken, who is disliked by the GOP controlled FOP leadership as much as the boycott groups. Recall petitions are really not wise long-term choices, because you don't know whom you will get place of the person you want out. Thankfully, this law is not easy to execute. The requirements are much higher than California's recall law. 15% for recall and 10% to get on the ballot is vastly more difficult than what the foes of Davis faced. Luken has no fear of being booted from office, except in November of 2005.
Bronson's Bullshit
No other title can do justice to Bronson's latest column, or should I just call it Peter's Propaganda. Trying to put abortion and slavery on the same level is a trite OLD plank of the anti-abortion theocrats that have been pushing their FASCIST agenda in this city for decades. I know I throw the fascist term around a lot, but there is no other term that fits. This is simply a group of people who want to make women into chattel of their deity. Women are the property of the Pope or Jerry Fallwall, or whatever Christian fundamentalist you want to insert. The game is now saying an embryo is equal to a living breathing human being. Bush is trying to do this by Presidential fiat. Next they will say sperm is a living being, then any cell, putting anyone who does not have sex for procreation or elective surgery into jail for "murder."
This game must stop. A woman's body is not the property of the state of any group's religion; it belongs to her. She must make the choice what to do with her body. It usually is best that she has a man or partner in her life that she can talk over all implication of any choice she makes, but that is not a given that should be forced upon her either. Bronson and his band of theocrats can try and prevent abortions through non-violent persuasion, but not via legislation. If Peter and the bible thumper crowd really want to reduce abortion, they might spend their time and money to promote contraceptives. Make the pill covered by all insurance plans, pass out condoms. If they want the numbers to drop, preventing unwanted pregnancies are the way to go, not through ineffective and oppressive religious codes.
His partial birth abortion rant is a textbook red herring. If his buddies would just pass a law allowing for the preservation of the health and life of the woman, they would get it past the SCOTUS. Compromise works, religious crusades do not work.
No other title can do justice to Bronson's latest column, or should I just call it Peter's Propaganda. Trying to put abortion and slavery on the same level is a trite OLD plank of the anti-abortion theocrats that have been pushing their FASCIST agenda in this city for decades. I know I throw the fascist term around a lot, but there is no other term that fits. This is simply a group of people who want to make women into chattel of their deity. Women are the property of the Pope or Jerry Fallwall, or whatever Christian fundamentalist you want to insert. The game is now saying an embryo is equal to a living breathing human being. Bush is trying to do this by Presidential fiat. Next they will say sperm is a living being, then any cell, putting anyone who does not have sex for procreation or elective surgery into jail for "murder."
This game must stop. A woman's body is not the property of the state of any group's religion; it belongs to her. She must make the choice what to do with her body. It usually is best that she has a man or partner in her life that she can talk over all implication of any choice she makes, but that is not a given that should be forced upon her either. Bronson and his band of theocrats can try and prevent abortions through non-violent persuasion, but not via legislation. If Peter and the bible thumper crowd really want to reduce abortion, they might spend their time and money to promote contraceptives. Make the pill covered by all insurance plans, pass out condoms. If they want the numbers to drop, preventing unwanted pregnancies are the way to go, not through ineffective and oppressive religious codes.
His partial birth abortion rant is a textbook red herring. If his buddies would just pass a law allowing for the preservation of the health and life of the woman, they would get it past the SCOTUS. Compromise works, religious crusades do not work.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Boring Porn?
Would you fall asleep during the viewing of a porn video? A juror allegedly did just that in the Trial of Shawn Jenkins here in Cincinnati. Jenkins is the latest victim of the Simon Leis Crusade against porn. One of Leis's Brown-shirts purchased a porn video that Leis has decided is not fit for us to view.
The case went to trial, but the judge had to declare a mistrial because two jurors did not view the video. One was sleepy; the other allegedly did not want to pay attention to the video. Prosecutor Bud Greenberg takes the case with this from the article:
This is not the first time this case had gone to trial. I still want Leis to document that his department has solved every theft case in the county in areas he has sole jurisdiction. Simon Says, sell porn and go to jail, get robbed and you better be insured.
Local Coverage: Enquirer, WLWT, WCPO.
Would you fall asleep during the viewing of a porn video? A juror allegedly did just that in the Trial of Shawn Jenkins here in Cincinnati. Jenkins is the latest victim of the Simon Leis Crusade against porn. One of Leis's Brown-shirts purchased a porn video that Leis has decided is not fit for us to view.
The case went to trial, but the judge had to declare a mistrial because two jurors did not view the video. One was sleepy; the other allegedly did not want to pay attention to the video. Prosecutor Bud Greenberg takes the case with this from the article:
Prosecutor Bud Greenberg said he understood why the juror would turn her head: "This video is so disgusting that that is the natural" reaction.Bud, what stick is up your ass? Or is that the issue, are you that homophobic that you fear "they" might come and make you gay? What a wuss. If you don't like porn Bud, don't watch it. Making it a crime is nothing but theocracy in action.
This is not the first time this case had gone to trial. I still want Leis to document that his department has solved every theft case in the county in areas he has sole jurisdiction. Simon Says, sell porn and go to jail, get robbed and you better be insured.
Local Coverage: Enquirer, WLWT, WCPO.
Corporate Censorship at the Enquirer?
Greg Flannery's column alleges that the Enquirer held a Maggie Downs column discussing the Convergys deal that "apparently clashed with the paper's endorsement of the Convergys deal." Greg mentioned the dozen or so people interviewed. I can speak as one of those interviewed. I don't know if my comments were used in the column, but I can confirm there was supposed to be one on that subject. My comments were not really opposing the Convergys deal; they instead were on ideas that could improve the downtown area for younger professionals, using the level of money in the Convergys deal.
So what's the real problem? Why would a newspaper want to manipulate the public? (Please stop laughing) Why can they publish a pro-deal editorial, but no alternative views? Is it a for a business reason? Is the business side of the paper intruding in on the editorial side? I can't think of another logical reason. The paper does, on occasion, have varied viewpoints, so why not now?
Update: Greg's column also confirms my contention that the Enquirer will be starting a weekly "tabloid" as he calls it, referring more to the physical size than the content. Greg reports that the publication will be starting this fall. I will have more to report on this new publication Thursday night.
Greg Flannery's column alleges that the Enquirer held a Maggie Downs column discussing the Convergys deal that "apparently clashed with the paper's endorsement of the Convergys deal." Greg mentioned the dozen or so people interviewed. I can speak as one of those interviewed. I don't know if my comments were used in the column, but I can confirm there was supposed to be one on that subject. My comments were not really opposing the Convergys deal; they instead were on ideas that could improve the downtown area for younger professionals, using the level of money in the Convergys deal.
So what's the real problem? Why would a newspaper want to manipulate the public? (Please stop laughing) Why can they publish a pro-deal editorial, but no alternative views? Is it a for a business reason? Is the business side of the paper intruding in on the editorial side? I can't think of another logical reason. The paper does, on occasion, have varied viewpoints, so why not now?
Update: Greg's column also confirms my contention that the Enquirer will be starting a weekly "tabloid" as he calls it, referring more to the physical size than the content. Greg reports that the publication will be starting this fall. I will have more to report on this new publication Thursday night.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Is CityBeat Toast?
"Sources" indicate, oh how it is fun to say "sources", that the Cincinnati Enquirer will be launching a new weekly publication. Specifics on its content have not yet been revealed, but all indications are that it will on some level be locking horns with CityBeat, the current leading weekly newspaper in Cincinnati. With prophetic accuracy Greg Flannery, News Editor of CityBeat, wrote this in his Porkopolis column just a couple of weeks ago:
I like competition. I would prefer both publications to thrive (bad pun). I just hope the Enquirer does not follow the Dallas Morning News and start a blog. If they do, I will not worry too much, but I would make a great consultant on how to do it. (Cough, Cough)
"Sources" indicate, oh how it is fun to say "sources", that the Cincinnati Enquirer will be launching a new weekly publication. Specifics on its content have not yet been revealed, but all indications are that it will on some level be locking horns with CityBeat, the current leading weekly newspaper in Cincinnati. With prophetic accuracy Greg Flannery, News Editor of CityBeat, wrote this in his Porkopolis column just a couple of weeks ago:
And then there's the recent two-hour powwow organized by new Enquirer Publisher Margaret Buchanan to hear what's on the minds of young urban professionals from such groups as Cincinnati Tomorrow, Give Back Cincinnati and YP Cincinnati. Attendees recommended ideas and changes to the paper, but one thing they might get in return is something they didn't ask for -- a free-distribution weekly paper published by The Enquirer and aimed at them.Greg may have known something, but I am sure the entire CityBeat staff will be none to happy with a revenue drain. The online version of Thrive is limited, but does seem to target much the same crowd as CityBeat. The website does bare more of Greg's predictions, this new weekly may be more arts/culture/entertainment based, leaving the "hard" news to the Enquirer.
Buchanan came to The Enquirer from The Idaho Statesman, a fellow Gannett paper, and during her tenure there she launched Thrive, a free weekly tabloid-sized paper that resembles an alternative weekly. If it materializes here, the local creative class can expect lots of articles on skateboarding, exclusive clubs, rock climbing and other entertainment options. But don't expect an alternative to The Enquirer's coverage of news and issues. After all, can Gannett be a real alternative to Gannett?
I like competition. I would prefer both publications to thrive (bad pun). I just hope the Enquirer does not follow the Dallas Morning News and start a blog. If they do, I will not worry too much, but I would make a great consultant on how to do it. (Cough, Cough)
Monday, July 21, 2003
Convergys Deal Near Completion
WCPO is reporting the details:
The total would be $54.75 million. Only the $10 million would be upfront, the rest is conditional over time. The reduction is about $10 million from the original deal. This deal should get Pepper's vote, since he negotiated it, along with Reece and most likely Monzel. Monzel made the power play, but got what he wanted.
Other reports:
WLWT-NBC is reporting that the deal appears to be back on with at least 5 council members supporting the revised deals. No details were reported.
The Post indicates that the negotiations are still going on.
The Enquirer reports on the woes facing the Convergys Center if Convergys moves to the Atrium One.
WCPO is reporting the details:
- $10 million dollars upfront to Convergys
- $1 million paid after 225 jobs are added
- $18.75 million paid over 30 months if Convergys purchases the Atrium One
- $25 million as part of a job creation tax credit
The total would be $54.75 million. Only the $10 million would be upfront, the rest is conditional over time. The reduction is about $10 million from the original deal. This deal should get Pepper's vote, since he negotiated it, along with Reece and most likely Monzel. Monzel made the power play, but got what he wanted.
Other reports:
WLWT-NBC is reporting that the deal appears to be back on with at least 5 council members supporting the revised deals. No details were reported.
The Post indicates that the negotiations are still going on.
The Enquirer reports on the woes facing the Convergys Center if Convergys moves to the Atrium One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)