Why is the Enquirer spend the time on this article about a shoplifting case, valued at $185, that happened way back on April 27th?
Am I missing the importance?
They even have a photo of the suspects.
Since the thieves allegedly stole FIVE containers of KY lubricant, I can only assume the couple has been too busy since April 27th to be caught.
UPDATE: I just say a TV commercial for that exact brand of KY. Why would they name the product in the first place? Is this really a paid advertisement disguised a news story?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Is the Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?
I know, most are going to answer the title's question "Is Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?" with a "Both" answer. The Provost at of The Phony Coney questions the timing of the Enquirer's coverage of the Bortz-Streecar Voting "controversy" as being, shall we say, ill-timed.
Yes, it is rather obvious that someone has been pushing the story to the Enquirer and the rest of the media around town. I don't know if I believe there is a full borne effort to disrupt the Streetcar project in the newsroom of the Enquirer. There may be individuals who oppose it, but the reporters are getting marching orders.
I do believe without a doubt that there is a desire for scandal, something media outlets nearly universally are guilty of doing, and doing without care in appearances or importance. I believe that desire isn't just in the editors' minds, it in this case is in the reporter's mind.
The only scandal with Bortz is in appearance. He made a public relations error in how he responded to the ethics letter. He didn't tell everything. That's his sin. The local media feels like he lied to them. They are pissed. Furthermore, where there's a lie, there's a scandal, so no matter the circumstances. Bortz and the Streetcar in association are going to get punched by the Enquirer. They will punch with same sin Bortz committed, the sin of omission.
So, the Enquirer is trying to sell newspapers and isn't doing or at least isn't publishing that is has done it's homework. That is bad journalism. It is good business. It brings more eyes to paper.
More evidence that I think sums up the problem comes in their editorial:
When other issues are pushed by Enquirer, I rarely see opponents getting the same credibility as Luken and Smitherman are getting. Those other opponents never drive the story. Anti-war protesters didn't get the credibility. People commenting on the death of a Notre Dame football recruit are cut off, not allowed to do anything to drive the story. These groups have limited voice and limited chance to influence the story, but Luken and Smitherman get quoted at will and on topics they know nothing about.
We don't need a manufactured controversy. The Enquirer has been the primary maker of that controversy surrounding Bortz and it is a bias they have, a bias for profit.
Yes, it is rather obvious that someone has been pushing the story to the Enquirer and the rest of the media around town. I don't know if I believe there is a full borne effort to disrupt the Streetcar project in the newsroom of the Enquirer. There may be individuals who oppose it, but the reporters are getting marching orders.
I do believe without a doubt that there is a desire for scandal, something media outlets nearly universally are guilty of doing, and doing without care in appearances or importance. I believe that desire isn't just in the editors' minds, it in this case is in the reporter's mind.
The only scandal with Bortz is in appearance. He made a public relations error in how he responded to the ethics letter. He didn't tell everything. That's his sin. The local media feels like he lied to them. They are pissed. Furthermore, where there's a lie, there's a scandal, so no matter the circumstances. Bortz and the Streetcar in association are going to get punched by the Enquirer. They will punch with same sin Bortz committed, the sin of omission.
So, the Enquirer is trying to sell newspapers and isn't doing or at least isn't publishing that is has done it's homework. That is bad journalism. It is good business. It brings more eyes to paper.
More evidence that I think sums up the problem comes in their editorial:
The streetcar may be a real step forward for Cincinnati. We don't oppose it. But we object to the way it has - or hasn't - been planned, explained and justified. So far, city leaders have been asking Cincinnatians to support a pig in a poke.Saying you don't oppose something you do nothing to support is as much dancing on the head of a pin one editorial can offer. If the Enquirer supports the Streetcar, then why are they giving people like Tom Luken and Chris Smitherman credibility when they oppose it with no fact or substitute plan for the development it would spawn? Neither person has any credibility, yet they are driving the Story. They are the opposition to the project, so they get the same level, and often a much, much bigger level, of a voice in the debate than the supports of the Streetcar.
Again: Where's the plan?
When other issues are pushed by Enquirer, I rarely see opponents getting the same credibility as Luken and Smitherman are getting. Those other opponents never drive the story. Anti-war protesters didn't get the credibility. People commenting on the death of a Notre Dame football recruit are cut off, not allowed to do anything to drive the story. These groups have limited voice and limited chance to influence the story, but Luken and Smitherman get quoted at will and on topics they know nothing about.
We don't need a manufactured controversy. The Enquirer has been the primary maker of that controversy surrounding Bortz and it is a bias they have, a bias for profit.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Casablanca and a Burger
A late Spring Sunday evening is a great night to get out of the condo and join your community in watching one of the best movies ever made. The details:
WHO: Venue 222Sounds like the perfect date night too. Any ladies want to go?
WHAT: There’s nothing better than a neighborhood party at Venue 222, Cincinnati’s premier urban event space. Join us with a showing of ‘Casablanca’ one of the most popular romantic dramas of all time. Food for purchase available from Café de Wheels, Cincinnati’s first mobile food truck. BYOBB – Bring Your Own Blanket & Booze.
Casablanca was premiered in 1942, with such stars as Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman – the film has been lauded for its inclusion of all types of stereotypes in popular culture.
This event is free and open to the public.
WHEN: Sunday May 16, 2010 from 6:30 p.m. – 10 p.m..
WHERE: 222 E. 14th Street, Cincinnati OH 45202.
First They Came for the Mexicans . . .
It's time to get concerned about the very visible anti-Mexican (and probably anti-Hispanic) bigotry taking hold in certain parts of the country.
First, we have the "papers, please" law recently passed in Arizona. Defenders of the law tell us that the only burden will be on illegal immigrants. They ignore the new power police are given to ask anyone who "looks illegal" for proof of citizenship. Everything in the statute is based on the state criminalizing the status of an illegal immigrant. Under the Constitution (which applies both to citizens and non-citizens), a law enforcement officer has to have "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" to detain someone and ask questions. (Google "Terry stop" for more on this.)
How can an officer tell the difference between a Mexican-American citizen and an undocumented Mexican national? He can't, of course. So in Arizona, just being Hispanic (or probably non-white) gives an officer reason to detain someone long enough to ask questions. Terrific.
Next, we have the California kids sent home for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. Many are treating this as an incident that is only about the free speech rights of the white students involved. (And I agree, their rights were violated; they should not have been sent home.) But what's being glossed over is the intent behind their "patriotic" display that day. Those students weren't just being patriotic. They were telling their Mexican-American classmates that the celebration of their heritage wasn't acceptable. They were making the Mexican-Americans aware of their otherness, showing them that they weren't quite Americans in the same way the flag-wearers are.
How do I know what the students intended, you ask? Simple. Because I never hear of students wearing American flags or "patriotic" colors on St. Patrick's Day. It's acceptable for people to wear green, display shamrocks, and celebrate their Irish heritage on that day. (I've also never seen any negative reaction to all of the black, red, and gold downtown during Oktoberfest.) Irish-Americans are OK. Mexican-Americans? Not so much. Ironic, given the history of discrimination against Irish-Americans.
The Butler County sheriff wants to bring a "papers, please" law to Ohio. In my criminal defense practice over the past six to twelve months, I've seen a growing hostility towards Hispanics. I hope that Ohioans prove that they're better than this.
In times of economic crisis, people often turn to scapegoating. That seems to be happening now in the U.S. Let's recognize it for what it is and end it. Now.
First, we have the "papers, please" law recently passed in Arizona. Defenders of the law tell us that the only burden will be on illegal immigrants. They ignore the new power police are given to ask anyone who "looks illegal" for proof of citizenship. Everything in the statute is based on the state criminalizing the status of an illegal immigrant. Under the Constitution (which applies both to citizens and non-citizens), a law enforcement officer has to have "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" to detain someone and ask questions. (Google "Terry stop" for more on this.)
How can an officer tell the difference between a Mexican-American citizen and an undocumented Mexican national? He can't, of course. So in Arizona, just being Hispanic (or probably non-white) gives an officer reason to detain someone long enough to ask questions. Terrific.
Next, we have the California kids sent home for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. Many are treating this as an incident that is only about the free speech rights of the white students involved. (And I agree, their rights were violated; they should not have been sent home.) But what's being glossed over is the intent behind their "patriotic" display that day. Those students weren't just being patriotic. They were telling their Mexican-American classmates that the celebration of their heritage wasn't acceptable. They were making the Mexican-Americans aware of their otherness, showing them that they weren't quite Americans in the same way the flag-wearers are.
How do I know what the students intended, you ask? Simple. Because I never hear of students wearing American flags or "patriotic" colors on St. Patrick's Day. It's acceptable for people to wear green, display shamrocks, and celebrate their Irish heritage on that day. (I've also never seen any negative reaction to all of the black, red, and gold downtown during Oktoberfest.) Irish-Americans are OK. Mexican-Americans? Not so much. Ironic, given the history of discrimination against Irish-Americans.
The Butler County sheriff wants to bring a "papers, please" law to Ohio. In my criminal defense practice over the past six to twelve months, I've seen a growing hostility towards Hispanics. I hope that Ohioans prove that they're better than this.
In times of economic crisis, people often turn to scapegoating. That seems to be happening now in the U.S. Let's recognize it for what it is and end it. Now.
New Store Coming to the Gateway Quarter
A new clothing store is coming to the Gateway Quarter and if the father of one of the owners is correct, it could be open as soon as in a few weeks. The store would take over 16 East 12th Street, the location that up until last month housed Outside, the store run by Terry Lee.
It was very sad to see Terry's store close, but it is a great sign to see the location turning over so quickly. On Sunday a crew was painting the space which is in great shape. I hope they are able to hold at least a soft opening on May 22nd when a great crowd will attend the OTR/Gateway Summer Celebration.
I was not able to get the name of the store or find any marketing information, so if anyone has more information, chime in.
It was very sad to see Terry's store close, but it is a great sign to see the location turning over so quickly. On Sunday a crew was painting the space which is in great shape. I hope they are able to hold at least a soft opening on May 22nd when a great crowd will attend the OTR/Gateway Summer Celebration.
I was not able to get the name of the store or find any marketing information, so if anyone has more information, chime in.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
The Fireworks Are Quieter
First, let me express (cautious) excitement about the Reds. They're currently a game above .500, in second place, and just three games behind the Cardinals. Mike Leake is a lot of fun to watch, despite a tough seventh inning tonight.
Now, let me move on to something that's ridiculously trivial, but that has been bothering me anyhow. I've made no secret of where I live: in an apartment building on Fourth Street between Plum and Central. My apartment is in the back of the building, facing the Duke Energy Convention Center.
In past seasons, I could "follow" the Reds in my apartment even without having the game on the radio or the television. If I heard fireworks, I'd flip the TV channel to FSN to see who just hit a home run. If I heard fireworks late enough in the evening, I'd know the Reds had just won. The sound was quite audible, and echoed off the buildings behind my building.
But this year, things are different. I can no longer hear fireworks from GABP. I was wondering if perhaps the Reds were using quieter fireworks, but when I attended a game for the first time this season (the eleven-inning thriller this past Monday), I thought the fireworks were as loud as ever.
My new theory: the Great American Tower is absorbing or deflecting the fireworks noise so that it no longer reaches the western end of downtown.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
And by the way, my previous concern that the Tower could impact games by causing right fielders to drop balls during day games has proven unfounded, as the building doesn't seem shiny enough to create a glare.
Now, let me move on to something that's ridiculously trivial, but that has been bothering me anyhow. I've made no secret of where I live: in an apartment building on Fourth Street between Plum and Central. My apartment is in the back of the building, facing the Duke Energy Convention Center.
In past seasons, I could "follow" the Reds in my apartment even without having the game on the radio or the television. If I heard fireworks, I'd flip the TV channel to FSN to see who just hit a home run. If I heard fireworks late enough in the evening, I'd know the Reds had just won. The sound was quite audible, and echoed off the buildings behind my building.
But this year, things are different. I can no longer hear fireworks from GABP. I was wondering if perhaps the Reds were using quieter fireworks, but when I attended a game for the first time this season (the eleven-inning thriller this past Monday), I thought the fireworks were as loud as ever.
My new theory: the Great American Tower is absorbing or deflecting the fireworks noise so that it no longer reaches the western end of downtown.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
And by the way, my previous concern that the Tower could impact games by causing right fielders to drop balls during day games has proven unfounded, as the building doesn't seem shiny enough to create a glare.
The $64 Million Question
Today's Enquirer has a "First in Print" story on the decision facing City Council this week: whether to approve the issuance of $64 million in bonds in the hope that this will be sufficient to attract federal funding for the streetcar. There's apparently some division amongst the streetcar supporters on Council, with some wanting to unconditionally approve the bonds, and others (Berding and Bortz) apparently wanting to hedge the City's bet, conditioning bond issuance on the receipt of federal money.
Mayor Mallory has said that the Council should unconditionally approve the bonds, and insists that the bonds wouldn't be issued by the administration until after the federal dollars come in, anyhow. Of course, under our present system of government, this isn't actually the mayor's decision; the City Manager would be solely responsible for the bond issuance once it's approved by the Council. I believe I've heard Milton Dohoney say that the bonds would wait until after federal financing is in place, but I can't find a link to that right now.
An interesting situation is presented. Mayor Mallory has put this on Council's agenda this week because recently, federal officials have told the City that it needs to have "skin in the game" to get federal money. The thought now is that approving the bonds will be enough, and that next month, the feds will reward the City in its next round of TIGER grants. Of course, the feds make it clear that local financing is no guarantee of federal money, but merely a necessary precondition of it.
So here's the question for streetcar supporters: what if Council unconditionally approves the bonds, and next month, the City again gets passed over? And what if a federal official says that merely approving the bonds isn't enough, that the City needs to actually issue them for the feds to know we're serious? Once again, the feds make no guarantees, just tell us we improve our chances if we issue the bonds. Under those circumstances, should the City place a $64 million bet on federal funds becoming available?
And what if we lose the bet?
Mayor Mallory has said that the Council should unconditionally approve the bonds, and insists that the bonds wouldn't be issued by the administration until after the federal dollars come in, anyhow. Of course, under our present system of government, this isn't actually the mayor's decision; the City Manager would be solely responsible for the bond issuance once it's approved by the Council. I believe I've heard Milton Dohoney say that the bonds would wait until after federal financing is in place, but I can't find a link to that right now.
An interesting situation is presented. Mayor Mallory has put this on Council's agenda this week because recently, federal officials have told the City that it needs to have "skin in the game" to get federal money. The thought now is that approving the bonds will be enough, and that next month, the feds will reward the City in its next round of TIGER grants. Of course, the feds make it clear that local financing is no guarantee of federal money, but merely a necessary precondition of it.
So here's the question for streetcar supporters: what if Council unconditionally approves the bonds, and next month, the City again gets passed over? And what if a federal official says that merely approving the bonds isn't enough, that the City needs to actually issue them for the feds to know we're serious? Once again, the feds make no guarantees, just tell us we improve our chances if we issue the bonds. Under those circumstances, should the City place a $64 million bet on federal funds becoming available?
And what if we lose the bet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)