Farewell to the Tribune
This weekend's "Opinion" article in the Tribune, written by John Tucker, is not only disappointing, it is wrong!
A full investigative audit will indeed reveal much more information than the yearly partial audit done by the State.
The State recommended a full audit be undertaken.
We don't really care to hear what John Tucker's opinion is regarding this matter. Who is he to second guess a State auditor's recommendation?
Who is John Tucker to come to town and second guess what citizens have been working on for more than 10 years?
Yep, 10 years have accumulated under the belts of several civic activists in town, and their hard work will NOT be trivialized!
After 2 sets of books were discovered under Overton's administration, and now a Federal FRAUD Investigator is here from the EPA, how can ANYONE argue against a complete investigation of the books?
It has become clear that Mr. Tucker has succumbed to the dribblings of the progressives, and that's just too bad.
We had high expectations that the new editor would see through the veil of lies that surround this administration and actually provide some investigative journalism to bring the facts to the people.
But, there's been no "investigative" reporting. No digging for facts and history. No critical thinking skills have been displayed from the Tribune for quite some time now.
Even accurate reporting of Council meetings has become a problem for the folks at the Tribune. Many of these errors were pointed out in an article at Freedom of Speech recently.
Still, the biggest disappointment is the bias that bleeds through every article written by Mr. Tucker. What happened to the idea that the press is supposed to remain neutral on issues? Most importantly, where is the most basic of good journalistic traits, the TRUTH?
All we've been getting is somebody else's opinion of the truth. At times, even the truth has been left out:
A FULL INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT WILL PROVIDE MUCH MORE INFORMATION THAN THE STATE'S ANNUAL PARTIAL AUDIT DID.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS RECOMMENDED!
So, I'll be canceling my subscription. I don't think I want to pay good money just to read Mr. Tucker's personal opinions.
Many others have already done so.
Some simple mistakes can be overlooked, but the overall stance of the folks who manage the Tribune cannot be missed. We feel this compromises attention to details and accurate reporting.
So, farewell little Tribune paper. We tried to hold onto some shred of dignity for you, but alas, you have slipped through our fingers. If you are not the press of the common majority, if you cannot print the truth, then you are "propaganda".
The only use I have for you is a place for the puppy to do his business.
posted by East Ender at
3:08 PM
70 Comments:
Since when are newspapers supposed to remain neutral? The best newspapers that I have ever read took stands on issues, through their EDITORIAL pages, which is exactly what Mr. Tucker did.
By
Iamhoosier, at 4:08 PM, June 19, 2006
Maybe you aren't familiar with the purpose of an opinion page. It is, strangely enough, a place where people's opinions are published.
As for your knock on the paper in general...it is the usual tactic of small minds to shout down the press when facts are presented that don't go along with there beliefs. You are acting pigheaded, and 10 years of being alarmist and being viewed by the people who actually know what's going on as kooks and loud mouths is not something to be particularly proud of.
When the history of this saga in New Albany is written, your side will, as per usual, be proven to have been on the wrong side of history, doing more harm to the city's progress than any elected official could ever do, because you are the worst kind of citizens....those you feel they must speak out at every opportunity despite having no grasp on the reality of things whatsoever.
cheers,
By
stenson, at 4:09 PM, June 19, 2006
I'm guessing that you don't understand the meaning of the Editorial Page. That is the page where people's opinions are placed. And Mr. Tucker is the publisher; he doesn't cover any beats, therefore, he can give his opinion on whatever he wants. Just because he writes an editorial doesn't mean everyone at the paper is of the same opinion.
And I must say that it is extremely smallminded of you to drop your subscription just because you disagree with someone's opinion. I mean really. Do you even realize how ignorant that makes you look?
By
Ali, at 4:16 PM, June 19, 2006
no loss these people cant read anyway
By
Anonymous, at 5:02 PM, June 19, 2006
Our family feels this issue of an Audit has nothing to do with Coffee, is not a political witchhunt, and is recommended BY THE STATE on Page 40.
The first thing my husband asked me was (before he even read the article) was "didn't the State recommend a full Audit be done?" Duh, yeah.
We don't care what Mr. Tucker thinks of Coffee, nor his opinions of any other Council member. Those are his opinions, and I respect them. The line was crossed when he went against taxpayers and the State of Indiana in trying to figure these monies out.
The comments I see posted in response to the article are only what we would expect from the people who are defending the Tribune.
We cancelled, too. Waited too long for them to come around and do their frigging job, alongwith the "politicos" that be. Investigative, my ***.
Thanks for the space.
By
Anonymous, at 5:22 PM, June 19, 2006
for all for all for all
By
Anonymous, at 5:27 PM, June 19, 2006
east ender –
I looked at Mr. Tucker’s opinion on line after reading you post. Thanks for pointing me to it. It is so full of holes that I won’t go into a blow-by-blow here. I do agree with some earlier comments that Mr. Tucker is entitled to his opinions. What was left out is the second part of that saying, “.. but he’s not entitled to his own facts.” Yet another piece of sloppy journalism.
More interesting to me is how many people may have even been offered the opportunity to read this ‘slopinion’ piece; so I did a little diggin’ and a little cipherin’.
Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CNHI) of Birmingham, AL owns the New Albany Tribune. According just today to their ‘home office’, circulation for the Tribune stands at 5,339.
A good question is what percentage of the population is exposed to the Tribune on a daily basis; namely, into what percentage of the population does this 5,339 translate. Since the Tribune claims to be the paper of largest circulation in Floyd County, once can use the populations/household size of the county as a reference.
In the 2000 census, Floyd County reported a population of 70,823 people, which means given the current 2006 Tribune circulation, it could be said only 7.5% of the population ‘receives’ the Tribune (difference in sampling dates errs to the benefit of the Tribune.)
If one looks at Floyd County households, which had an average size in 2000 of 2.54 persons, it could be said that 19.1% of the population ‘receives’ the Tribune (ditto on the sampling dates.)
[Note" 'receives' implies that the person actually reads the paper, the opinion piece in question.]
The truth is somewhere between 7.5% - 19.1%, since readership varies by age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, etc.
If you split the difference then (admittedly not very scientific), approximately 13.3% of Floyd County residents 'receive' the Tribune; about 1 in 8 people.
The CNHI home office would not answer questions about trends (declining readership) as almost all newspapers nationwide are reporting. [Good stats on declining national readership statistics at Newspaper Association of America. Keep in mind, too, that this is a pro-newspaper group.] To boot, the Pew Research Center, in a poll taken in 2005 reported that only 54% of people who actually read the daily newspaper believed what they were reading was indeed true, and that number too had been declining precipitously over the past 10 years (love how Pew sugar-coated the title of the survey results.) And more, newspaper sectional readership surveys put the opinion page in the lower 1/3 tier of what people who receive the paper actually read.
Bottom line, east ender, is not unlike most opinion pages in most newspapers today, the Tribune is a publication of little readership or influence in a dying industry.
I, too, miss the good old days of investigative journalism, and the time when daily opinion pages carried intellectually honest, and frequently opposing, opinions.
Besides the bias which you rightly mention, we canceled our subscription some time ago, because when it comes to news, “If you’re reading it in a newspaper, it’s not news; it's history.”
Keep on bloggin'.....
blogtastic
By
blogtastic, at 6:48 PM, June 19, 2006
ali -
You quite correctly defend Mr. Tucker's right to express his opinion, but then castigate east ender's right to do the same by canceling her subscription?
Speaking of ignorance, surely you understand that freedom of speech, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, also includes many modes of "conduct" other than the articulated word?
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it! - Voltaire
By
blogtastic, at 7:10 PM, June 19, 2006
HOORAY! blogtastic does it again!
By
Anonymous, at 7:29 PM, June 19, 2006
Hooray for Mr Tucker and the Trib for having the courage to stand for what is right. Keep up the good work. If only that other paper would try to present the news as honestly and fairly. That other paper only serves to promote the nay-sayers of this community who have had their way for far too long.
By
Anonymous, at 8:09 PM, June 19, 2006
Dear Blogtastic,
Wow, I really hit a nerve didn’t I?
I'm flattered Blogtastic (and I really feel silly addressing you as Blogtastic. I assume you to be a grown adult with an alter ego but can’t be sure. Can’t you come out and play like a real person?) that you spent a whole day researching the circulation of our newspaper and then crunching numbers. Yeah, newspaper numbers are hurting (however, ours has been rebounding as of late) but our online numbers are skyrocketing. Guess what – my opinion is online as well as in the paper. That means I have many more readers than before. And good news again – according to my quick look at bloginfluence (http://www.bloginfluence.net/en/) - my readership online is 5000 to this blogs 300 score. Even more good news – our demographics show that if a person votes locally, they take our newspaper or read us online. Last but not least, I’d like to point out that we have more readers than voted in the last election!
So you can wish away the impact of newspapers, but you are only playing to the fantasies of this small crowd. You know it and I know it.
As a newspaper, we have a legal obligation to print the facts – you claim I did not print facts in my opinion piece. However, you did not want to go “blow by blow” on the holes (in the facts) in my opinion piece. Instead you opted to degrade the source – typical smoke screen move that shows you are right in line with the current state of things in NA.
I’m calling you on it. What did I print that wasn’t fact? Please go “blow by blow.” It sounds like I had multiple transgressions. I’ll print a retraction in the paper if I’m wrong – I’m obligated to do so. If you had a real name and something to say, I’d even put your rebuttal in our newspaper and on the web where you can have some real impact.
Finally, you quoted Voltaire in an attempt to sound informed – Unfortunately, like Bogart never said, “Play it again Sam”, Voltaire never wrote “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” A biographer of his paraphrased it.
The closest he came to writing it was: “Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” Not quite the same thing – he was complimenting someone’s writing style. Don’t worry, it’s a common mistake but remember Mr. (or Ms.) Blogtastic – you can have your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
By
John Tucker, at 9:19 PM, June 19, 2006
One more thing Blogtastic (still feel silly addressing this way),
You not only incorrectly attribute Voltaire in your reply to Ms. Ali, but you refuse to read her post as intended. Ali is simply hoping that Ms. Oates realizes that my opinion doesn’t reach into the other parts of the newspaper – our reporters are to keep with the facts no matter what my opinion is. Readers sometimes don’t understand that. Ms. Ali doesn’t want Ms. Oates to depend on nameless and faceless people (such as you) for unverifiable facts.
Even Dan Coffey has said that our reporting has been fair and accurate – he just doesn’t care for what I have to say.
I’m guessing you want these folks in the dark though - so shutting them off to newspapers or any other form of information than yours plays right into your hands…
By
John Tucker, at 9:47 PM, June 19, 2006
Crickets left to chirp in the wake of a true editor.
By
Anonymous, at 11:23 PM, June 19, 2006
How can you disagree with page 40 of the Audit which indicates we need a "full" Audit?
How can you not know already about the two sets of books in '02, the lack of an '02 & '03 Audit, the Federal Fraud investigation into our monies, etc? How do you get around the City not even reconciling their Ledgers? We bought new financial software and computers in '03 -- so, excuse us while we finish trying to clean up the mess created by past and present administrations.
Thanks Blogtastic. As I said before, this isn't about Coffee, nor anyone else. It's about our MONIES and the State doing their job. It will come out in the wash; we simply had higher hopes for our new "investigative" journalism so taxpayers can take some time off, you know?
By
Anonymous, at 11:50 PM, June 19, 2006
Well, well Mr. Tucker.
Seems we've struck a nerve haven't we? A great big, overstuffed, progressive, nerve.
Although we are flattered that you have taken the time to respond to our stated disappointments, we do think you could have left out the jab about anonymity and simply cared enough about the readers to feign some modicum of respect for the way things are done here.
Furthermore, "...playing to the fantasies of this small crowd"??? is an outright insult that we feel reveals a true lack of professionalism.
Something we might have expected from a mere reporter, but not from the Editor.
In fact, if you indeed found that the participants and readers of this "small crowd" were inconsequential, I doubt we would have warranted such rapid and lengthy, and somewhat angry rebuttals as we got from you.
Then again, you have been demonstrating problems with that FACT thing lately.
FACT: A FULL investigative audit, as recommended by the State Board of Accounts, will provide significantly more information than was available during the annual partial State audit.
Let's try another one:
How many cancellations has the Tribune had since your management took over? How many in the past 30 days?
Please, no spining the facts to present this information tainted with your opinions.
Just the facts please.
That's where your argument falls apart:
"...my opinion doesn't reach into the other parts of the newspaper."
OH, yes it does.
It has reached into the articles written about CM Dan Coffey and the supposed motivations behind his resolutions, into the "facts" written about how much EDIT money has been pledged to Scribner, and the bogus "Opinion Poll" that asked the wrong question the wrong way about Scribner.
No one ever suggested killing Scribner Place, but in your paper it was an all or nothing proposition. You know as well as I do that's it's all about the phrasing of the question when it comes to such opinion polls.
That's why they don't carry much weight with educated folks like us.
These are all clear instances of your personal opinion influences.
Frankly, you can go right on writing what you please. It won't be bothering us much. But, be forewarned that you are overestimating the "ignorance" factor of the citizens of New Albany. Sooner or later, they will all, "call you on it".
By
East Ender, at 2:36 AM, June 20, 2006
Tucker-How many council meetings have you been to?
Also,I think your idea for Floyd county is great. Put a group of elitists together to decide the future growth pattern for the area. This is what they did in Clark County. You know, some people who sit on bank boards, some huge builders, and some former meembers of the church hierarchy and couple them with the chamber of commerce to determine future growth. Everyone knows who is involved in that endevor in Clark County and it is a very self serving group and is NOT a good idea.
By
Anonymous, at 7:39 AM, June 20, 2006
BULLSHIT! Pure BULLSHIT!
"No one ever suggested killing Scribner Place" Cm Coffey's plan was nothing short!
While you narrow minded blowhards give this man praise, he is slowly turning the knife he has placed in your back!
He is nothing more than a spoiled brat, that is pissed because he didn't get elected president of the council! NOTHING ELSE. He doesn't give a damn about missing money, in fact he and three other of the gang of four are just responsible for missing funds as any past mayor!
I think Mr. Tucker, Cm Seabrook both are right on the money, Cm Coffey hasn't got a clue about what he wants audited, he just wants to stand on top of the hill and thump his chest.
We the citizens are getting pretty tired of his antics. While the readership on newspapers are in decline, reading online is up, way up! And, never before has so many voters been informed of the goings on of our elected officals, all of them! But come election day '07 you so called little people just may not see the outcome you cry for!
Damn shame that dog can't piss on your monitor! That is where he needs to!
By
Gen. Bullmoose, at 7:44 AM, June 20, 2006
Progressive:
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
By
Anonymous, at 7:51 AM, June 20, 2006
It is hard to have respect for "the way things are done here" when the rules keep changing.
Since September '05 this blog has TWICE went to comment moderation(total control of comments), once to registered users whose identity is known to the administrator, and has deleted a whole posting and the related comments because the administrator did not like what was said. All of this in less than a year.
By
Iamhoosier, at 8:17 AM, June 20, 2006
Eastender gets put in her place by someone who actually has a brain in his head, and as per usual, she must turn to lies and character assasination to defend herself.
An act of desperation from a team of small minded individuals.
Get a life.
By
Anonymous, at 9:12 AM, June 20, 2006
"No one ever suggested killing Scribner Place, but in your paper it was an all or nothing proposition."
EE, that's simply a blatant mistruth, albeit it one that you're fond of pitching again and again.
Over a year ago, Steve Price stated flat-out, and publicly, that he was against the project, period.
While it's true that CM Coffey sends out so many conflicting signals that it's hard to tell which way the tiny wheels are turning from day to day, numerous anonymous expressions of support for the Wizard right here in your own blog made no bones about delight at the entire project potentially disappearing.
Throughout, you've been disingenuous about this, coyly refusing to acknowledge that the social corrosion you continue to empower represents Price's mode of knee-jerk anti-everything and not the angelic "we're not really against the YMCA" party line you keep espousing, as though there are no readers with the discernment to tell the difference.
You're approaching Main Street standards of disingenuous -- although, to be fair, Erika still lies more than you do.
BTW, is blogtastic planning on fluttering down from the retirement villa in the Knobs to joust with the publisher?
By
The New Albanian, at 9:31 AM, June 20, 2006
I think it's telling that Price took that anti-Scribner stance prior to knowing how much EDIT money would be requested for the project or how much EDIT money the city takes in every year.
If financial knowledge has no bearing on decision making, what's his motivation?
It's also important to point out that Coffey's anti-Scribner resolution made no mention whatsoever of delaying the project. It clearly stated that funding be rescinded, not postponed.
By
bluegill, at 10:11 AM, June 20, 2006
Although Mr. Tucker is entitled to his opinions he doesn't want to publish opposing opinions such as mine.
I have sent three letters to the Tribune, two in the last week, and as of yet have not seen them published. They have not even emailed me to acknowledge that my letter sent Saturday (on line) has been received.
I realize that the Tribune probably receives several letters a week but mine always seem to be ignored while those agreeing with Mr. Tucker are published. There was a letter in the Sunday paper which was far longer than the 250 word limit.
So, keep up the good work Laura & Blogtastic. We need to let the truth be known.
By
blog reader, at 10:25 AM, June 20, 2006
In your Tribune letter:
Did you sign your name?
Did you include contact information?
Did you refrain from slander?
If "yes" on all three, then you may have a case. If "no" to any, then the publisher's recent listing of letter conditions may interest you.
By
Anonymous, at 10:32 AM, June 20, 2006
I love this blog. I get to watch the authors of the pieces get torn apart with logic and there is simploy nothing they can do to defend themselves.
Like taking candy from a baby.
By
Anonymous, at 11:03 AM, June 20, 2006
blogtastic, you cute thing, please come down and give us some guidance, we just don't know what to dew w/o you
By
Anonymous, at 11:28 AM, June 20, 2006
To Anon 10:32
Yes I did sign my name, included my email address and daytime phone number. Of course, I did not slander anyone.
I am not an idiot.
There was not reason for the Tribune not to publish any of the three of my letters.
By
blog reader, at 12:06 PM, June 20, 2006
Ms Oates,
Blogs are truly biased and often loose with facts – entertaining and sometimes useful to get out information but not to be confused with public record. As such, I normally don't respond to the blogs unless I feel my business is being unfairly attacked. I responded last night because someone was degrading what I feel to be a very important institution in our society.
So this won't be an ongoing correspondence. In fact, I intend this to be the last on this topic.
You asked for facts. Here are a few...
1. I am a publisher not an editor. Steve Kozarovich is the executive editor and Shea Van Hoy is the managing editor.
2. I am told when a person quits because of editorial content. We have had one over the past month. On the other hand, I have had numerous compliments. You can swing by and I'll show you our records or you can just take my word.
3. For all intents and purposes, the Scribner Place was dead if we, as a city, pulled away from our end of the deal. Ceasers said as much. To hide behind the statement that “we want Scribner, but just not now” is just that – hiding. We made no claim of a scientific poll. However, we surveyed nearly as many as Gallup does when they take a national poll for a president. In addition, the answers were so positive for Scribner that it's hard to believe your argument of a "silent majority."
4. Our statements on EDIT money and how much is pledged vs what the ceiling is for Scribner are spot on.
5. An anonymous poster on this blog said that we were not printing their letters. I believe that person’s letter is printed in today’s paper (considering we received it on Saturday and we published only one day since then, that’s a pretty quick turn around). It is the one denouncing Roger Baylor and lifting up Coffey. We printed her other letter earlier in the week – perhaps she missed it. I believe it was Tuesday. We print and welcome every letter that is within the guidelines that we state.
6. Last but not least - and this is important because your whole argument is based on this - You claim that the state recommended a full audit. You said that it was not the responsibility of the council members to investigate why the numbers are over budget. Correct? Good. Remember that. Remember that the councilman you support want to spend anywhere up to $100,000 on an audit that they believe will provide them answers that they can’t find themselves. Remember how many times Price and Coffey have bristled at what they said was frivolous and ignorant spending. Remember that this is Coffey’s resolution and also remember the other councilman who voted for it.
Then look at tomorrow’s newspaper to find out what the auditors really recommended. You see, we asked them and they answered.
By
John Tucker, at 12:19 PM, June 20, 2006
I re-read the Farewell to the Tribune article. Although Laura disagreed with John Tucker's editorial she did not say that he was not entitled to his opinion, she just said she did not care about his opinion.
She did, however, state that some of the actual news articles are biased and unfactual. On this issue I must agree. Mr. Campbell's reporting of the June 15 City Council meeting was unaccurate. This was also stated in the Freedom of Speech article. Freedom of Speech was right. I was there and I noticed the inaccuracies myself.
Mr. Tucker, if you want to increase readership of the Tribune, please have your reporters cover the news without bias. The readers deserve that much anyway.
By
blog reader, at 12:25 PM, June 20, 2006
I find it interesting that those with the "most" to say also say it in the least meaningful ways. Who are you, "blog reader"? Who are you "Anonymous"? Why should any of us give you an ounce of credence or consideration if you're not willing to identify yourselves? And, if you're going to go to the trouble to say something's inaccurate (as opposed to "unaccurate", also please take the time to identify what that might be. Who's got the time to waste reading FOS?
For the record, I am a proud subscriber to the Tribune and I appreciate Mr. Tucker's willingness to speak out as he has. I'm willing to bet that there are more who agree with him than disagree and I look forward to the results of that agreement in the local elections next year.
By
SBAvanti63, at 12:50 PM, June 20, 2006
In response to 3:09 PM. Who on top Mt. Baldy is Valla Ann???
Valla Ann is a political crusader and a real citizen's advocate. She's the one that has been having the city council meetins taped for the last two years and had them aired on WNAS until the mayor put a kibosh on it because he doesn't want the citizens ro know whatis going on anymore than he wants us to knoq where our money is. She has a bed and breakfast on Main Street in New Albany and works for the Govenor too.
By
FYI--JANICE, at 1:04 PM, June 20, 2006
Elections, by-lections, blah, blah, blah.
Wonder how he would feel being involved in a major investigations into the City's monies and having to give your personal social security numbers, etc., out to Federal Fraud investigators?
Wonder if he is aware how long some people have worked to help Clean Up New Albany, in a lot more ways than one?
Where is the respect a lot of taxpayer advocates deserve, whether you agree or not with ANY council member?
Citizens didn't put their names out there for no reason. This would be, I guess, simply another case to suppress what is really going on in this town; just paint that rosy picture. You go ahead and follow that pied piper off the cliff; we already did and it HURT.
Take care.
By
Anonymous, at 1:12 PM, June 20, 2006
"Citizens didn't put their names out there for no reason."
And she posts anonymously.
I'm telling you, that satire gene is dead and buried.
By
The New Albanian, at 1:43 PM, June 20, 2006
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
One voice, at 2:03 PM, June 20, 2006
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
One voice, at 2:03 PM, June 20, 2006
Mr. Tucker you are in the mayors pocket!
You should be looking at all the facts not what you are being told to write.
The headlines should have read: Where is the money? Instead your so called opinion is TUCKER: An audit is not the answer.
You need a copy of the 2004 audit. It seems like Valla Ann Bolovschak made an excellent case for an audit. Why don't you interview her? You do know who she is?
By
Anonymous, at 2:32 PM, June 20, 2006
I hear she won't talk to the newspaper -- better to run her campaign incognito.
By
tribune reader, at 2:38 PM, June 20, 2006
That's how these people operate. They degrade the paper for being one-sided then refuse to speak with them. Intelligent, eh....
Now, all of you...run along and get back to your factless little blog life and let the grownups finish talking.
By
stenson, at 2:54 PM, June 20, 2006
The many citizens of NA are tired of all the corruption in city government.
Take a STAND & BOYCOTT The New Albany Tribune.
By
Anonymous, at 2:56 PM, June 20, 2006
Would you mind explaining the corelation between boycotting the Tribune and corruption in city government?
By
Iamhoosier, at 3:05 PM, June 20, 2006
They can't explain anything they say.
By
stenson, at 3:11 PM, June 20, 2006
Rather like the connection between supporting Dan Coffey and matters actually improving.
In other words, none.
By
The New Albanian, at 3:52 PM, June 20, 2006
I totally agree. Let's boycott The Tribune til they print the facts.
By
Anonymous, at 4:05 PM, June 20, 2006
Oops! That was fast. Boycott officially over.
By
Anonymous, at 4:19 PM, June 20, 2006
This just in!
Today the information highway came to a screeching halt. Those who read and respond on blogs, have been give till midnight to show proof of intelligence!
If unable to comply with this request, they are to cease all attempts to communicate with other intelligent life!
Oh God, to go back to the days before you could say anything you want on a blog and the people take it for gospel.
Damn you Mr. Gates, damn you to hell, if you would have just stayed in your geeky bedroom and played with your little dicky maybe none of this shit would have come about!
But no! You had to invent the computer, and along with that other politicial joker the internet, so these days we get bombarded with bullshit, that most people think is the truth!
There is no truth on this blog, or any other for that matter. It's all one persons opinion, and you know that say about that, everyone, even the assholes that run this blog have one! I think I got that wrong, but then again, hell you don't know who I am, so who gives a rat’s ass! RIGHT!
By
Walter Crankcase, at 7:02 PM, June 20, 2006
Mr Tucker don't you worry about loosing those two subscritions.
Maybe Dandy Randy will buy 100 to give away to poor people swimming in that there new cess pool!
The one behind Mr Coffeys house! Isn't he the guy that got caught doing contractor work with out a license? Maybe that why he such a bad mood these days, hard to make a liven in the junk sale business, when the most you can get is a dollar.
By
Anonymous, at 7:08 PM, June 20, 2006
coyle,
3 million corporate give-away? And you think you have all the answers?
Typical progressive air-head.
By
Anonymous, at 7:55 PM, June 20, 2006
The communist and atheists are roam our streets of New Albany.
By
Anonymous, at 8:03 PM, June 20, 2006
I’m new here, so forgive me if I’m missing something, but…isn’t the city council responsible for the budget, as well as approving all city expenditures over $500? So if “the books” are a mess, isn’t that the councils fault? Aren’t they the overseers we elect and pay to OVERSEE the money? I find it bizarre then that a councilman would be ballyhooing for a resolution that in effect – asks someone else (an auditor) to do his job? It seems there have been plenty of audits in the last few years that have shown areas of deficiency. So the obvious thing isn’t to have another audit, but it might be to follow-up on the previous audits? How can we get beyond this lynch mob mentality in town that demands a crook to hang in the town square, and look for ways to design and implement a good public finance office downtown. I think Mr Tucker at the Tribune was correct to argue the points he did, and to defend them so eloquently here.
By
G.Coyle, at 8:11 PM, June 20, 2006
Mr. Tucker,
Talk about hitting a nerve. Your overly charged comment instead demonstrates that it is you who has experienced the hyper-stimulation to your neural system.
Where to start…………
First, to your tired commentary on anonymity. You can read my previous and only true posting to this blog for my opinions on that fallacious argument. I presume from your comments that you fall into the same line of reasoning that wishes not to discuss the facts of a situation in a probative manner; but rather try to ‘out’ the individuals who present facts anonymously/pseudonymously, and/or disagree with your opinions in the same manner, for the sole purpose of diverting attention from the issue at hand to assailing the messenger. If/when I one day run for city office, I may indeed disclose my true blogger identity; but then again, maybe I won’t. It’s a free country (that pesky First Amendment thing), and I do gain some amount of satisfaction from flaming up such sanctimonious people as yourself.
Second, the number crunching took a mere fifteen minutes; a call to CNHI, a visit to the indianastats web site, a few simple calculations set up in Excel. However, if I did wish to spend the entire day crunching numbers, what is it of any consequence to the facts of the matter at hand. And more importantly, why the heck should you care what I do with my personal, semi-retirement time?
Third, regarding my comments about the Tribune, I stated, “[N]ot unlike most opinion pages in most newspapers today, the Tribune is a publication of little readership or influence in a dying industry,” (emphasis added). You have shown me nothing to contradict what I originally stated.
most opinion pages in most newspapers today – FACT: As I stated before, and I’m sure you are aware, sectional readership surveys have shown that opinion pages are among the bottom tier of those sections actually even read in a given newspaper.
little readership – FACT: The Tribune does have little readership, notwithstanding your assertion which I take as the truth that recent circulation is up somewhat. I hope you can get it back, for as I told east ender, “ I, too, miss the good old days of investigative journalism, and the time when daily opinion pages carried intellectually honest, and frequently opposing, opinions.” You then compare your readership to this blog (“…readership online is 5000 to this blogs 300 score”) as some indicia of success, by citing blog influence as provided by the blog influence web site. FACT: This scoring is not a measure of readership, but rather defined by some arcane formula: [(blog+posts+web links) + (bloglines subs * 2)] * 1+(Pagerank/10). I am no expert in this field, but I, too, am indeed interested in blog influence, a rather nebulous concept to get one’s hands around. Before I am erroneously assailed again for degrading the source, however, let’s defer to a true expert on blogging; John Walkenbach, creator of the most popular and profitable blog ($millions) in existence, the J-Walk Blog. His blog influence score is 139,355.8. What does he thinks of the blog influence rating you so proudly hold out ? I quote from his March 18, 2006 post, “The number, of course, is completely meaningless without any point of reference. But they do provide a colorful little graphic to add to your site.” (While you’re there, also check out Mr. Walkenbach’s views on anonymous/pseudonymous/fictitious authors of comments. If it is good enough for the biggest blog in the the blogosphere, I guess it’s good enough for little old New Albany! At least it is for SOLNA!)
Assuming for the remainder of this argument that the near-useless metric you cited is valid, I would think that the largest newspaper in the county, with both marketing and advertising plans and budgets, and presumably a dedicated web master to boot, would indeed far surpass this small blog in ‘activity’ by more than a factor of seventeen; the true question is, why isn’t it even more? Rather like Tiger Woods feeling good about beating me in a game of golf! (I do not mean to digress, but does anyone know a comparison of this blog to other local blogs in regard to readership/influence?) And not to speak for east ender, but I furthermore feel good about the 300 score; it is a perfect score in bowling, one of my favorite pastimes.
influence - FACT: Look again at the Pew poll I posted on how Americans feel about the believability of what they read in the newspaper; spiraling ever downward. FACT: On a more local focus, did the council members against whom your paper continually rails on other issues capitulate when voting for an audit? No, so your paper obviously was of little influence on them, or the people who have been calling on them to initiate such an audit. You state that, “our demographics show that if a person votes locally, they take our newspaper or read us online.” So what? Does that imply you can make them vote in a certain fashion? I used to take your paper, and know folks who still do, who in no way vote how the editors at the Tribune would recommend or like to see. Finally, you state that, “Last but not least, I’d like to point out that we have more readers than voted in the last election!” Again, so what? What the heck does this even mean in relation to readership influence? If your paper is of such great local political influence, and you implied that it is by your last two comments I cited, one would think at a minimum that you could get the electorate to the polls!
dying industry - FACT: The industry is dying; circulation is down, advertising revenues are down, employment is down. Need I continue? Nor did I say it is dead; I would like as much as perhaps anyone to see a renaissance in newspapers, for that is the medium from which I gleaned information about the world while growing up, and was my first employer.
So you see, Mr. Tucker, I am not “degrad[ing] the source” as you charge, but rather presenting what I still assert is a factual snapshot of the state of the national newspaper industry, and perhaps the Tribune itself. And please note that none of my factual presentation on the state-of-the-industry reflects any bias towards a particular viewpoint; the entire industry, regardless of which way their editorial page and journalists may lean, is in a severe funk.
On to your opinion piece. I did not at the time elect to go into a blow by blow, for I thought east ender performed admirably in this repsect.
”I’m calling you on it. What arrogance and pomposity; as if I our anyone else in this world is required to answer to you, most exalted journalist?
But in the interest of the truth, I will answer! (You have also inspired me to finish my post submittal on truthiness; check back soon!)
Since you claim to be disavowing any further contact with this blog, I will email my response to your editorial, to both you and east ender no later than early tomorrow afternoon (I have a commitment shortly). If you wish to post it in the Tribune, then do so. If not, let east ender or I know by email, and I will ask her to post it, or submit as an addendum to this comment under this same post.
I must ask in closing, if this blog is of so little importance and influence, why are ‘you’ here? By ‘you’, I mean all those who so rabidly disagree with the points of view and facts presented on this site. It’s not that all aren’t welcome, because unlike any other local blog, this one accepts all comments; the ‘big tent’ of the local blogosphere. But I do find it amazing that while ‘you’ continually “degrade the source”, inclusive of the positions and the people herein, ‘you’ continually visit to debate. I can only surmise from ‘your’ continued, welcomed presence and commentary that this is the only such site that encourages truly open and free debate, has “some real impact,” and tries to keep nothing in New Albany Confidential.
blogtastic
By
blogtastic, at 9:05 PM, June 20, 2006
Mr. Tucker,
If you feel silly using the salutation of blogtastic, feel free to use sir.
I read ali’s comment correctly. If east ender wishes to exercise her First Amendment right to free speech via protected “conduct,” such as canceling her subscription that, too, is her right.
It is too bad in such situations that one cannot parse their subscription of the opinion page alone (or whatever else to which they may object) and keep the rest, so must elect to boot the entire publication.
” I’m guessing you want these folks in the dark though - so shutting them off to newspapers or any other form of information than yours plays right into your hands…”
Please show me where I either endorsed east ender’s canceling her subscription, or encouraged others to do likewise. I simply reported what our family did with their subsription some time ago, and the reasons for it.
You certainly play loose with the facts, in this case my actual retort to ali. More truthism.
Take a valium.
blogtastic
By
blogtastic, at 9:12 PM, June 20, 2006
Nice rhetoric. When you get around to answsering the challenge rather than avoiding it, let us know.
By
bluegill, at 9:25 PM, June 20, 2006
my family and i thought you'd do better blogtastic. darn.
By
Anonymous, at 9:27 PM, June 20, 2006
i don't understand what he said either.
By
Anonymous, at 9:32 PM, June 20, 2006
dude - tucker didn't ask you for facts. he said he wanted you to show you what he said wasn't fact. why is it always about you. i'm not voting for you when you reveal yourself - gross.
By
Anonymous, at 9:38 PM, June 20, 2006
In the paper today, Ms. Baird wrote that I'm on a mission to ruin the political careers of two councilmen.
That's not quite true.
My mission is to expose their actions to the harsh light of human reason so that they ruin their own political careers.
Really, Shirley, if what we write at NAC is irrelevant -- as many of the masked ones here would claim is the case -- then how much harm can we do to the Siamese Councilmen?
It's much less taxing (ooh -- that word again) to let them do it to themselves, freeing me to go have a beer.
BTW, are you still assisting theVickster with the Erika fraud? Just looking for a scoop.
By
The New Albanian, at 9:40 PM, June 20, 2006
Blogspastic wrote:
"This (SOLNA) is the only such site that encourages truly open and free debate, has 'some real impact,' and tries to keep nothing in New Albany Confidential."
Hmm, that one might be directed at moi, so permit me to remind all SOLNA readers, including Blogspastic, that you're more than welcome to join the discussion at NA Confidential -- providing, of course, that you identify yourselves to the moderator (who promises to keep your identities, well, confidential if that's what you desire).
Come to think of it, seeing as I just moved to New Albany (from Floyds Knobs) 15 years ago -- perhaps I missed something.
Is NAC's policy keeping people away? Gee, that's strange.
By
The New Albanian, at 9:46 PM, June 20, 2006
me thinks blogtastic is waiting to reply because he wants to see what the paper says tomorrow. the guy admited he wants to run for office. he's just like the rest - a politician.
By
Anonymous, at 9:47 PM, June 20, 2006
"On to your opinion piece. I did not at the time elect to go into a blow by blow, for I thought east ender performed admirably in this repsect."
OMG! I thought blogtastic was supposed to be smart. does he have a grasp on the issues? did he really think she did a good job?
By
Anonymous, at 9:55 PM, June 20, 2006
people who write anonymous letters are gutless cowards who must not feel very good about themselves. Instead, they seem determined to drag people and things down to their level — the gutter — perhaps with half-truths or even outright falsehoods. but you never know.
By
Anonymous, at 10:29 PM, June 20, 2006
Coyle,
Your missing alot. You are strickly out of your league when it comes to running the city.
But again it's only your opinion. right? But does your opinion matter? Nope!
May you continue to side with "tucker" as we say ignorance is blitz.
By
Anonymous, at 11:21 PM, June 20, 2006
new albanian-
You've been exposed for month's. Get a life and continue to act important in this town. The joke is on you.
communist pig!
By
Anonymous, at 11:26 PM, June 20, 2006
How very courageous of you, anonymous.
Oh, but wait -- the terms "courageous" and "anonymous" are mutually exclusive, aren't they?
By
The New Albanian, at 11:27 PM, June 20, 2006
Not to mention capitalist running dog.
By
Anonymous, at 11:28 PM, June 20, 2006
what about your real estate deal on Main Street Mr. Baylor?
By
Anonymous, at 12:25 AM, June 21, 2006
NAC IS HISTORY. STICK WITH BEER INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MESS WITH GOD.
CAN'T WAIT FOR YOUR GRAND OPENING.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 AM, June 21, 2006
There isn't any real estate deal on Main Street. Never has been. But since even the former Mayor seems to think so, then you can think so, too.
But you're wrong.
Again.
By
The New Albanian, at 12:43 AM, June 21, 2006
This thread, while making a few really good points (thanks and kudos blogtastic), has also been full of a lot of bad mouthing of people against other people.
I would like to suggest that everyone give a real good thought to the idea that none of this needs to be personally ugly or threatening, because this isn't PERSONAL, this is BUSINESS.
PLEASE, leave personal insults out of the discussions!
Otherwise, run the risk being deleated at MY DISCRETION.
Tonight, I'm leaving ALL these comments stand as-is, because the entire thread is very telling about a lot of things. Pick one.
However, I suggest we stop here.
If you are compelled to continue, stick to the issue and refrain from personal attacks.
By
East Ender, at 1:59 AM, June 21, 2006
translation: disagree with me and face being deleted.
You, mam, are quite crazy.
By
me, at 9:36 AM, June 21, 2006
Try acting like an adult and having reasonable discussions.
You, whoever you are, are quite rude and completely unreasonable.
By
East Ender, at 2:27 PM, June 21, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
rCreate a Link
<< Home