For those of you who are, like me, fans of Josh Campbell (the chef/proprietor of Mayberry and the World Food Bar), there are a couple of exciting events coming up.
On June 11, 2010, Josh once again join forces with Molly Wellmann (my review of an earlier joint venture featuring those two is here) for a Caribbean-themed dinner at the Boost meeting space on Reading Road. (I'm not sure if this spot counts as downtown or Pendleton.) On the menu: "funky island fare" from Josh and "classic tiki bar drinks" from Molly. There will also be a DJ. Apparently, the Boost venue is fairly impressive. The roof will be open (weather permitting), and food will be served downstairs. Tickets are $50 each (I think beer may be included in that price, though Molly's drinks are extra--and well worth it!); for reservations, call Mayberry at 381-5999.
And this Monday, May 17, at 6:30, Josh will be serving up a "Taste of Mayberry" at the Party Source in Newport. This is a demonstration class, so you'll be able to see Josh in action. The food includes pepper bacon-wrapped figs (you had me at bacon), grilled hanger steak, and banana cream pie. The cost is $60 (which includes some wine, I think), but Party Source has a 2-for-1 special (so it's essentially dinner for two for sixty bucks).
Both events sound great; I'll be at one or both, and hope to run into some of you there.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Miami University: Is Anyone Really Surprised?
This is the post that may finally get me kicked off the blog.
Today comes word that the Miami chapter of Alpha Xi Delta may be suspended for bad behavior at an off-campus party. Earlier this week, the university announced the suspension of Pi Beta Phi for similarly drunken and boorish behavior.
And all of this comes on the heels of revelations that MU's most famous alumnus, Ben Roethlisberger, behaves like an entitled, inebriated frat boy on such a regular basis that some have begun to suggest that brain damage is to blame.
In a letter regarding the most recent sorority incident, MU President David Hodge writes that "the actions of these students are contrary to the values of Miami University." My question: how many people agree with him?
Most people who didn't attend MU perceive it as a place for spoiled rich kids who, not having the grades or connections to get into a better school, have found a quiet corner of Ohio in which to drink away their parents' money. MU students have set fires to so many couches that Oxford has a law banning anyone from having upholstered furniture on a porch. MU students, so disappointed that the scheduling of spring break would deprive them of the communal drinking opportunity posed by St. Patrick's Day, created Green Beer Day, devoted to nothing but drunken revelry.
President Hodge seems to fear that the recent bad conduct of two MU sororities will give the university a bad reputation. He's wrong. Stories about drunken, misbehaved MU students don't alter people's feelings towards MU; they reinforce them. And that's the real problem that Hodge must face, if he's serious about protecting the "values of Miami University."
UPDATE: Deadspin has more details on the Pi Beta Phi misbehavior. (Hat tip: Scott Sloan.)
Today comes word that the Miami chapter of Alpha Xi Delta may be suspended for bad behavior at an off-campus party. Earlier this week, the university announced the suspension of Pi Beta Phi for similarly drunken and boorish behavior.
And all of this comes on the heels of revelations that MU's most famous alumnus, Ben Roethlisberger, behaves like an entitled, inebriated frat boy on such a regular basis that some have begun to suggest that brain damage is to blame.
In a letter regarding the most recent sorority incident, MU President David Hodge writes that "the actions of these students are contrary to the values of Miami University." My question: how many people agree with him?
Most people who didn't attend MU perceive it as a place for spoiled rich kids who, not having the grades or connections to get into a better school, have found a quiet corner of Ohio in which to drink away their parents' money. MU students have set fires to so many couches that Oxford has a law banning anyone from having upholstered furniture on a porch. MU students, so disappointed that the scheduling of spring break would deprive them of the communal drinking opportunity posed by St. Patrick's Day, created Green Beer Day, devoted to nothing but drunken revelry.
President Hodge seems to fear that the recent bad conduct of two MU sororities will give the university a bad reputation. He's wrong. Stories about drunken, misbehaved MU students don't alter people's feelings towards MU; they reinforce them. And that's the real problem that Hodge must face, if he's serious about protecting the "values of Miami University."
UPDATE: Deadspin has more details on the Pi Beta Phi misbehavior. (Hat tip: Scott Sloan.)
Good Compromise for Streetcar Bonds
I'm still lukewarm (at best) about the notion of a streetcar. Lots of smart people who I respect say it will spur investment and development. So maybe my doubts aren't reasonable. (But please, folks, quit telling me about Portland. I don't have any reason to believe that city is analogous to Cincinnati. I'm much more interested in the streetcar experiences of places like Kenosha.)
But if our policymakers are going to move forward with the streetcar, I think they've done so in a responsible, measured way. Today, Council approved the issuance of $64 million in bonds, but removed the "emergency" clause from the authorizing legislation. That means the ordinance isn't effective for 90 days, by which time the City will almost certainly know whether federal help is coming our way. If not, Council can rescind the ordinance before the bonds issue.
One other question: the price that's been quoted is a few years old now. Given increases in steel prices, is it still any good? Isn't this project's cost going up by the minute?
But if our policymakers are going to move forward with the streetcar, I think they've done so in a responsible, measured way. Today, Council approved the issuance of $64 million in bonds, but removed the "emergency" clause from the authorizing legislation. That means the ordinance isn't effective for 90 days, by which time the City will almost certainly know whether federal help is coming our way. If not, Council can rescind the ordinance before the bonds issue.
One other question: the price that's been quoted is a few years old now. Given increases in steel prices, is it still any good? Isn't this project's cost going up by the minute?
Arnold's Is Going Topless
A new local Brewery, Rivertown Brewery, is joining the celebration by making Arnold's the first Downtown bar to carry their beers. Blues artist John Redell will play from 8PM to 10PM, but the party goes on until closing with all Rivertown beers only $3.
Sorry if you wanted more, but it just ain't happening.
A Heartwarming and Stomach Filling Story
Sean Rhiney from Soapbox has a very touching story about a new OTR business, ForkHeartKnife Kitchen.
They are on Twitter now too! @forkheartknife
They are on Twitter now too! @forkheartknife
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Why Is This a News Story?
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)