• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

“SDGossipScene is more than understanding when it comes to respecting other’s requests,” says website operator Felicia Canales, “but we find it mind-boggling that photographers, who all supported SDGossipScene, would pull out all at the same time.”

According to Canales, her site covering the local club scene was contacted by five photographers “asking to please stop usage of their photos due to it conflicting with their photography.… SDGossipScene is currently on pause until other actions can be taken.”

Canales’s final post on the website blames one particular photog for the boycott, calling it a “personal attack from Ben DeCamp.… [We] had a fight after [my] trip to L.A. to talk to producers about a possible SDGossipScene reality show.”

The two subsequently had a Facebook battle that included publicly posted messages from DeCamp. “You’re getting imagery for free. Perez [Hilton] pays tens of thousands of dollars for an image.… This is serious business for me, the other photographers, the DJs, and the bar owners. A lot of people talk behind your back, but I’m not like that. I’m telling you right now, you are not going to fuck this up for me.

“I can’t have my photos published on your website anymore. I’m getting a lot of complaints from the scenester girls I photograph and it’s conflicting with my brand.”

Canales says that her reposted photos from other websites can benefit both photogs and venues. “Without club-photography, you can’t be seen.” She hopes to restart the website by bypassing photog permissions altogether. “Club promoters [and] owners can release club photos to SDGossipScene, since they pay the photographer for club photos.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

Seth Feb. 24, 2010 @ 5:33 p.m.

Sanford and sons-Can't you come up with your own story ideas instead of recycling mine and trying to pass off as your own? I wrote about this three weeks ago in Locals. Same with the story on Diatribe. Lazy.

Oh, and BTW, Felicia should be contacting you about the unauthorized use of her picture. I told her she should bill you $1500 (seemed like a good figure). I'm sure your publisher can write it off. :)

http://sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/reports_from_the_scene/8962/

0

Turbo Feb. 24, 2010 @ 5:57 p.m.

How ironic, that you use a picture from myspace..... this is exactly the kind of use the photographers were trying to protect.

This is a horrible article, totally recycled, and not even the whole story. Did you do ANY research? Fact checking? Did you even give Felicia the courtesy of calling her to let her know there was an article?

You didn't even put the ".com" at the end of her URL.

Freedom of the press does not come without it's responsibilities.

Jay Allen Sanford, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you made any money on this article you should be reprimanded.

0

PistolPete Feb. 24, 2010 @ 10:30 p.m.

Looks like Jay's article had 3x as much info than Seth's. I'd say Jay beat Seth at his own game...

0

antigeekess Feb. 24, 2010 @ 11:12 p.m.

Nah, it's Jay's game. This Seth twerp writes like he's about 19, and if there's a version of this story that qualifies as "lazy," it's clearly his. His style actually reminds me of a certain cretin, recently ejected from this locale.

As for the other one (who apparently thinks he's a comic book character), I find it "ironic" that he doesn't even know the difference between "it's" and "its," yet feels free to lecture other folks about their writing.

The unfortunate part is, neither one of them is even the least bit entertaining.

http://www.spooncraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/failed_troll1-300x300.jpg

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:53 a.m.

"Can't you come up with your own story ideas instead of recycling mine and trying to pass off as your own?"

Yeah, well, go cry to Dave Maass, I'm sure he'll be more than happy to create a scathing blog entry out of this. Tell him to be sure and include lots of pictures of Jay in compromising positions. Oh, and question whether or not Jay's abortion stance has anything to do with ripping off your articles. That's always good reading.

0

Jay Allen Sanford Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:18 a.m.

Felicia announced on February 17 that she's working on a new version of the site with WebitMD, retooled as an entertainment guide. You can keep up with her thru Twitter@SDGossipScene -

When this Blurt was written, I hadn't seen any other coverage.

0

Felicia Feb. 25, 2010 @ 3:16 p.m.

This article is one giant quote from my blog, and this picture was taken from my personal MySpace. Jay Stanford was probably paid a lot of money for this article/picture and I should be compensated for it. I also had no knowledge of this article. I would think The Reader would know better.

Call me a hypocrite, but at one-time the photographers were okay with letting me use their club photos. I'm billing The Reader $1,500 for the photo.

For an updated version on the SDGossipScene.com story please visit:

http://www.sdgossipscene.com

0

Felicia Feb. 25, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

P.S

I'm also aware that The Reader give money to anti-abortions groups. I am not a fan of this.

0

SDaniels Feb. 25, 2010 @ 4:17 p.m.

re: #9: Oh, really? The "Reader" "give" money to anti-abortion groups? Can you elaborate on this, Felicia? Provide some evidence?

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 4:50 p.m.

"Without club-photography, you can’t be seen."

And free publicity must suck, eh "Felicia"? Moron. I'm billing you three hundred dollars for wasting my time. But first, I'm going over to your "personal" MySpace page (1st clue - if I can see it, read it, copy it, or paste it, then it isn't very personal, now is it?) so I can line my neighbor's cat box.

0

Felicia Feb. 25, 2010 @ 5:38 p.m.

Don't get mad at me because The Reader doesn't have the curtsey to send out an e-mail asking me for a photo of myself. I've also had MANY friends tell me that The Reader supports anti-abortion groups. Seth is right. The Reader is lazy. I can't wait for this story to go on my new site. Oh wait, it already is.

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 5:56 p.m.

It's spelled "courtesy". And they don't need to ask you if you publish it on a blog/site that ostensibly exists in order TO PROMOTE YOURSELF. Your many friends are undoubtedly working for/fans of SD CityBeat. They are scared. So is Seth. Their product is inferior to the competition's, so they try and claim that the Reader is an anti-abortion weekly. They really try hard to drive this point home because they can't write their way out of community college.

But you just go on believing what you wish. Meanwhile, if I'm Jay, and after SD CityBeat goes under and you need/crave/beg for publicity from the Reader, my answer would be something along the lines of pounding sand. But, you know, burn your bridges. Obviously, the writers of SD CityBeat are burning theirs. Honestly, I'm amazed that any of you people can manage to survive for more than a few months, what with your lack of understanding concerning how the world actually works.

The more enemies you make, Felicia, are that many less who would care to hit your website. I haven't, and now I sure as hell won't. But good luck anyway, you'll need it if you react to free publicity like this.

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 6:58 p.m.

Come on Gringo?! That's a lame argument. You know the more we fight, the more attention both you and Felicia will get. 2Pac didn't really hate Biggie. He cared about the attention it got him.

Since you collect a paycheck from The Reader and you're dutifully bound to defend your doghouse, I'm sure that you really do believe that The Reader is a better product. Subjectivity aside, my main point, and one you can't dispute, was that we (CityBeat) write about it first and The Reader reports on it later. That's it. It doesn't matter if Jay or Dorian or Ken do a better job on reporting it (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't). The story's already been reported by the time you guys write about it. There's a reason they call it "news", not "olds."

I'll paraphrase MTV News' old catchphrase that I think applies here: CityBeat: You hear it first. SD Reader: Three to four weeks later. If not, maybe sometime down the road when something controversial happens.

Also, Felicia has nothing to do with music! Last time I checked, Blurt was supposed to be a music column, is it not? Are you guys going after the hipster demographic and is this really all you could come up with?

And I am not scared about burning bridges at The Reader or any other publication. Shenanigans are shenanigans and you guys deserve to be called out if you're lazy or reporting falsehoods. I would never, ever work for The Reader. Not for a million bajillion dollars. I'd rather starve. If CityBeat goes out of business (which will not be anytime soon, I assure you), it will not be because of the quality of the reporting. I hold my head up high every day knowing that we may not be the biggest kid on the block, but because we're undoubtedly better.

Felicia-What Gringo here is doing is trying to change the subject and make the argument about myself and CityBeat. Don't let him. In fact, I'll change it back for you:

Gringo and Jay-Is it not lazy to just pull something off a blog and report it as a news story with byline? Moreover, is it okay to simply pull a photo off Facebook or MySpace and not ask permission to run it in your publication? Please consult your Journalism 101 text book if you need help answering these.

0

SDaniels Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:02 p.m.

re: #12: "I've also had MANY friends tell me that The Reader supports anti-abortion groups."

What kind of site do you have again there, Felicia? A gossip site? Ahhhh, well. That explains the disclosure of such compelling sources as "I've had MANY friends tell me..." Because everyone knows that "MANY" is quite impressive and convincing--hell, I'm sold. You need provide no further evidence!

Felicia, if you think really really hard, you are going to come to the conclusion that it makes no sense, and is not entirely likely that the Reader is "supporting" anti-abortion groups. If your "MANY" friends come up with some hard evidence and deign to reveal their sources, by all means, have this very large group share with us.

Ta ta for now.

Curtsey ;)

0

SDaniels Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:06 p.m.

re: #14: "Since you collect a paycheck from The Reader and you're dutifully bound to defend your doghouse..."

Gringo: You are collecting kibble from the Reader? Where's my cut for commenting on your blogs?

When I think of all of the photos and words I've contributed to this doghouse of yours...I'm taking you to small claims, Senor! Get ready for a s*** storm, mon liege! ;)

0

Felicia Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:23 p.m.

Gringo,

I don't care if you do visit the site. I don't think it's really in your age group. You can't defend the actions of The Reader, and you know it. Now I know why so many people say The Reader suck. I'm surprise of your lack of understanding of photo law. How long have you been in this business?

0

Jay Allen Sanford Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:40 p.m.

Nearly all posts on Felicia's website are about nightclub events, referencing local DJs and many live performers. She's even done band profiles, interviews, and concert reviews, so her site was a suitable "music news" topic for Blurt. Plus, I LIKE her site. I look forward to seeing what Felicia does next -

Bragging about mentioning a story in print FIRST being preferable to getting the story correct, balanced, and complete only illustrates the main problem at City Beat. It's a shame the many and frequent merits of that paper have taken a backseat to the schoolyard "Nyah nyah" rants and inferior rush-to-press blatherings of some lesser contribs who've recently infiltrated their ranks -

And breastbeating that "I would never, ever work for The Reader. Not for a million bajillion dollars" is akin to ME claiming "I would never, ever pilot the Space Shuttle into orbit for NASA" ---- like it ever has a chance of happening.

Finally, I have nothing to do with photos that run in Blurt, but it's my understanding that pics posted on MySpace become public property, so long as their use doesn't defame the subject. Photos on commercial websites appear to be subject to more complex ownership and use issues. It seems the jury is still out RE many such particulars of the internet age --- which is exactly what this Blurt is about.

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:01 p.m.

"I don't care if you do visit the site. I don't think it's really in your age group."

No, it's not in my age group. In fact, my seventeen-year-old daughter is too old for it. But if I run into any 12 year olds, I'll be sure and pass the word.

"You can't defend the actions of The Reader, and you know it."

What actions? What in the hell are you talking about? Did the Reader kill someone? Holy crap, what am I trying to defend? Enlighten me, please.

"Now I know why so many people say The Reader suck."

Yes, those who can't read are stuck with speech instead of reading content. It's unfortunate. I'm sorry the school system failed your ability to actually read content.

"I'm surprise of your lack of understanding of photo law."

And I'm "surprise" at your lack of the proper use of the English language. But let's talk about photo law. If you upload a photo to your website, and then you want to charge people for using it (never mind that you post no disclaimers concerning your images), then it's fair game. Guess what else? MySpace owns your content, not you. I'd recommend that you read the fine print, but since you've never even read the Reader, I doubt that it will happen.

"How long have you been in this business?"

What business? I don't work for the Reader. Not that I wouldn't, if I felt I had something to offer and they needed it then I certainly would consider it. I like the Reader. I like the people that write for the Reader.

I write freelance. And when someone ganks something I've written, I smile. They are promoting me. It makes me happy. Sometimes people that read something lifted from my website find my email address and send me a nice note. And the next thing I write for a check, they want to know where they can read it. This makes the people that pay me very happy.

What part of this don't you get?

An aside: Jay, if you ever decide to bottle your patience, I'm a buyer.

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:17 p.m.

Seth, I don't "get a paycheck" from the Reader. Dude. Seriously, that homework is easy, just look a few pages inside the cover and you'll figure out who is on the payroll - I'm not there. And Seth, let's talk about who is doing what here, exactly. First, you show up and tell Jay he's ripping you off (which is total B.S., I've read your stuff and you ought to make friends with Jay and become a better writer for it). Next, Felicia magically shows up and threatens the Reader with some sort of a demand to be paid (it took me a good half-hour to stop laughing about that one).

My point, which you don't get (and never will), is that Jay gave her free pub. And she's upset about it. What a load of crap! You come in here and spew your hurtful rage at having written about something first - please. Spare me. Then you sick Felicia on Jay. Again, please. Seth, you are a great example of what is lacking at CityBeat. Professionalism. Dude, get some. And quick. I can see through you better than most squeaky-clean windows.

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:23 p.m.

How come I always miss the good s***? :-/

I was about to throw the smackdown to Felicia regarding Myspace photos before reading that refried beat me to it...

0

Felicia Feb. 25, 2010 @ 9:01 p.m.

Thanks Jay! You are so nice. I'll pay you one-day to write some original local gossip. I wonder how Gringo's 17-year-old daughter would feel if I posted a bikini picture from her MySpace on my site (after she turns 18)? It would be great publicity for her father's writing. I'm over this fight. The fact remains that The Reader is lazy and can't write an e-mail asking for a picture of me. Instead they have to steel one from my 24th birthday album on MySpace.

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 9:12 p.m.

Goes to show how much you know about the law, Felicia...Gringo's daughter doesn't have to be over 18 for you to copy one of her photos from her MySpace to put on your worthless website.

0

David Dodd Feb. 25, 2010 @ 9:25 p.m.

Felicia, it's "steal", not "steel". Steel is the metal, steal is a theft. I'll only bill you one hundred dollars for that English lesson. And, if my 17 year old had bikini pics on her MySpace page, and you posted them somewhere else, then guess what I could do about it? Nada.

Even at seventeen. So long as she is clothed (albeit scantily), it's legal. Of course, she knows better than to post bikini pictures. But let's explore how I would "feel"...

Look, nobody owes you anything - not an email, not a request, nothing. Whatever you put out online is fair game. Whatever you write is open for dissection. This is what happens. This is what life is all about. How I would "feel" is exactly what I've been telling you all along. When I write something, I expect that every so often someone is going to react negatively. I also expect that a certain amount of it will be passed on without my permission. Unless that writing is published properly (i.e., a novel or in a publication that reserves rights), then it's also fair game. I accept the risks, because they pay off in the long run.

Free. Publicity.

Same with the daughter. She's been taught this from an early age. You post it, then you pay the consequences. So far, no bikini pics. Sorry to disappoint, but this is what happens.

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:08 p.m.

Wow, big bad boys picking on the little girl and how she can't spell as well as the so-called journalists. Jesus, are you getting your rocks off over there Gringo?

I’m sorry Jay, but I really can’t see how you can defend yourself on this one. Let’s put aside the fact for a minute that I wrote about it first. Who cares, right? Moving on, you did a story on someone where you made no attempt to contact the subject of your story or ask her permission to run a picture of her. Nor did you try to contact the person she was having an issue with (Style Shark photographer Ben DeCamp). It’s just plain lazy, man! You really phoned it in! Contacting both of them for an interview is as easy as a mouse click on FaceBook, so why didn’t you do it? I know you’re on there. Say what you want about my story, but at least it was timely and novel and not just a rehash of a couple blog posts.

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:09 p.m.

The fact is that you and Gringo are both wrong when it comes to the issue of the photo, but I’m not surprised since both of you don’t bother to do your research.

First, I’ll address Gringo's (and now Pete's) claim that if “you upload a photo to your website, and then you want to charge people for using it (never mind that you post no disclaimers concerning your images), then it's fair game.” This is absolutely incorrect. The person who took that picture owns that picture and is protected under U.S. copyright laws. It doesn’t fall into the category of “fair use,” because The Reader is profiting from it at the expense of the photographer and Felicia. Whether it’s free publicity for sdgossipscene doesn’t matter. The picture is the issue. You also claim “MySpace owns your content, not you. I'd recommend that you read the fine print, but since you've never even read the Reader, I doubt that it will happen.”

Uh, actually it’s you that hasn’t read the fine print, sir. MySpace's Terms & Conditions page lays it out very clearly that "MySpace does not claim any ownership rights" over the photos users post on the site. It goes on to say that while MySpace has the right to display the photos or content within MySpace “this limited license does not grant MySpace the right to sell or otherwise distribute your content outside of the MySpace Services." See rule 6.2 and 6.3:

http://www.myspace.com/Modules/Common/Pages/TermsConditions.aspx

So unless Rupert Murdoch owns the Reader (which I wouldn’t be surprised if he does), then you’re wrong on that.

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:10 p.m.

Jay, you claim, “the jury is still out RE many such particulars of the internet age --- which is exactly what this Blurt is about.” Yeah, you’re right, but let me get this straight: You’re saying that because it may or may not be legal then it’s still okay to post a picture of someone without their permission? If so, I would strongly advise you to read up on the case of Ashley Alexandra Dupre. You remember her, right? Eliot Spitzer’s old girlfriend. Well, all those news outlets that ran pics from her MySpace page got sued and have subsequently changed their policies when it comes to what is “fair use.” You might claim in defense that the photos of Dupre were used to disparage her and your story doesn’t do the same to Felicia, but that’s not even the legal argument that Dupre’s lawyers are using. A press release from her own attorneys claimed that had nothing to do with it but rather that the “photos were obtained in violation of Ms. Dupre’s privacy rights and federal copyright law” and “may well constitute violations of federal copyright laws”. And you guys didn’t even credit MySpace like the AP did in the case of Dupre. Good job. The fact that you hide behind the old, “Oh well, that’s not my job” excuse is just further proof of your laziness.

http://reportr.net/2008/03/15/the-rights-and-wrongs-of-ashley-alexandra-dupres-myspace-photos/

http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2219

Whether it’s illegal or not, The Reader still did not properly credit the source. Felicia, or at least her friend who took the picture, absolutely does have a serious legal case against the Reader for copyright infringement since he/she is the sole owner of that picture and you did not seek his/her permission to run the picture or give them proper credit.

So, same as before, but hopefully answered this time: Gringo and Jay-Is it not lazy to just pull something off a blog and report it as a news story with byline? Moreover, is it okay to simply pull a photo off Facebook or MySpace and not ask permission to run it in your publication?

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:18 p.m.

Funny. I don't remember Felicia saying that her MySpace photos are copyrighted...scratches head

No copyright-no permission needed. The photos I use on this website are mine and my parents and neither one of us has a copyright to them. If you were to use any of my photos where I'm over 18 for promotion in say....a gay porno mag, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it. If I copyright them however, THEN you're breaking the copyright law. This is common sense, Seth.

0

antigeekess Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:25 p.m.

"And breastbeating that "I would never, ever work for The Reader. Not for a million bajillion dollars" is akin to ME claiming "I would never, ever pilot the Space Shuttle into orbit for NASA" ---- like it ever has a chance of happening."

And just for the record, I would never, EVER date Viggo Mortensen. I don't care how much he begs. :)

0

antigeekess Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:27 p.m.

Felicia, is English your second language, by any chance?

(Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.)

You're welcome.

:)

0

antigeekess Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:30 p.m.

"If you were to use any of my photos where I'm over 18 for promotion in say....a gay porno mag..."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OH gasp MY gasp, cough GOD gasp, cough, cough

I can't even breathe. Warn people before you do stuff like that, Pete.

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:32 p.m.

No, Pistol Pete. You're a dumba**:

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

A sample:

Q. How do I copyright my works?

A. A copyright originates at the moment a work is created. For a written work, the copyright comes into existence as the words are typed, printed, or saved to a computer disk. For a photograph, the copyright is created at the moment the image is developed. If a photograph is taken with a modern digital camera, the copyright originates at the time the image is saved on a computer disk or on a hard drive. As long as the work exists in tangible form or can be understood or reproduced with the aid of a machine, it is copyrighted.

Q. Do I have to file anything in Washington, D.C., in order to get a copyright?

A. No. A copyright is secured automatically when a work is created. This concept is frequently misunderstood. Some people still believe that there are formalities required in order to create a copyright. This is not true. Under the latest version of the Copyright Act, neither publication nor registration with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is required in order to secure full copyright protection. When a work is created, it is automatically copyrighted.

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:35 p.m.

Wow! I just read about copyright law and I'll be damned...Seth and Felicia would be right. I was getting copyright and trademark confused. I was wrong and they were right. My apologies.

However, I did find this... "Fair Use (or Fair Dealing in some countries) permits copying for some purposes, but is a complex issue. Generally, copying is permitted for personal use, research, teaching, criticism, parody, news reporting and editorial use." http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.copyright.html

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 10:37 p.m.

Glad I could use my self so someone could get a good laugh, AG. :-D

0

Seth Feb. 25, 2010 @ 11:05 p.m.

Pete-Thanks for being the bigger man in this and admitting your faux pas. As for "fair use," as I mentioned in the post above, it's hard to prove this because a publication would have to prove that they did not benefit or profit from running the photo. In the case of editorial, that is extremely difficult because a paper sells ads.

0

PistolPete Feb. 25, 2010 @ 11:12 p.m.

Just for the record, I have no beef with either Seth nor Jay. I just like to stir up the pot and be Devil's Advocate. As for Felicia, I'm sure she's a good person but she's a horrible speller and if gossip is her "thing", it's not my cup of meat but will take the ocassional potshot now and then.

Like I've told SDaniels NUMEROUS times even though she doesn't believe me, I'm a VERY opinionated person and it's my way or the highway until proven wrong. I've been proven wrong and I'm man enough to admit it.

Carry on...

Also, I'd like to see a Reader/CB CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH! "Let's get it oooooooooon!"

And no, I'm not puttin' odds on either of you guys. :-D

0

Jay Allen Sanford Feb. 25, 2010 @ 11:22 p.m.

Thanks, Pete, for confirming that "fair use" of a publicly posted photo is permitted for "news reporting and editorial use." Again, I have about as much to do with Reader photos as with selling classified ads, IE nothing - given a choice, I would have drawn a silly but pithy cartoon illustrating the dispute, rather than running a photo. But the Reader is probably tired of me scribbling 'toons everywhere they let me drop the tip o' my pen ---

I too am mystified as to why Felicia has a problem with her website situation getting widespread coverage in the third largest circulation weekly newspaper in the U.S., and on a website that spreads the story around the planet far wider than her own (very entertaining) website could ever have accomplished, especially in its current inactive state. We usually get THANK YOU letters for such well-balanced and high-profile coverage.

It's an interesting topic, worthy of discussion, as evidenced by this comment thread now running approximately 4,000 words longer than the Blurt itself ---

BTW, a note to Felicia - I'll gladly draw that pithy cartoon for YOU, if you'd like! Tho I had nothing to do with pulling your photo from MySpace, I'd volunteer the freebie artwork to you anyway, just 'cuz it'd be fun to draw! You may use it any way and any place that you please - just click my contact button on this page.

0

Enrique_Limon Feb. 26, 2010 @ 1:10 p.m.

I can’t believe that I registered for a Reader account, but this whole back and forth is just too effin funny. Jay, I’ve never met you personally, and for all I know you’re a peach of a man, but how is this blurb “fair and balanced” like you state, if a) you only have ONE side of the story, and b) the quotes that you do include in said piece are in fact lifted from Ms. Canales’ blog. I mean come on, man…it’s as easy as hitting the “contact” button in her page.

Not to mention, you can point fingers all you what and nag about CityBeat (one word), but seriously, you have NO say over what images go along with your column at all? Who does then? Maybe some frustrated intern who thought lifting a [not so-flattering deodorant gunk on her pits] shot from her personal MySpace profile would be “edgy.” Well…maybe Reader edgy. Regardless, all pics should be credited. I’m blown away that someone of your experience is so loosey-goosy on a section that bears his name.

“Bragging about mentioning a story in print FIRST being preferable to getting the story correct, balanced, and complete only illustrates the main problem at City Beat…” I’m not sure that Seth is bragging, but rather pointing out a truth. As far as “correct and balanced,” again I wonder if you subscribe to the Bill O’Reilly school of objectivity. Don’t even get me started on your “Touring Tijuana Bathrooms” piece that includes a bevy of uncredited pictures (though they do hyperlink to your personal Webshots account) but seriously dude, did you take them all? Not to mention half of the “disco style bars” you mention (oddly enough without hyphenating the first two words) on your nut have long since expired. Be honest, when was the last time you went to Zka or Baby Rock (if ever)? 15 years ago?

Just because it’s an over the border subject, doesn’t mean your free of fact checking. News flash” People in Tijuana pick up the Reader as well. I did in when I was a kid, and so did my mom. You also owe that readership sector a hefty dose of the professionalism you so boast about in your rant.

To reiterate, this is not an attack. Just a very honest critique that I do hope you can take at face value. Unlike oh-so-many day old sweat pants wearing dudes who get their kicks by anonymously trashing either outlet, I’m proud to say that I am a CityBeat columnist (hopefully not one of the “lesser contribs” you mention; though really, who cares?), And I am using my real identity.

And while it is admirable for all parties involved to be proud of their respective outlets, comparing the SD Reader to NASA is perhaps a true testament to the effects of asbestos poisoning. When was the time that building was tested?

0

Enrique_Limon Feb. 26, 2010 @ 1:22 p.m.

Correction, "you're free." For the record, I just looked down and I am wearing sweat pants. Though I did shower today and they are fresh.

0

Felicia Feb. 26, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.

Wow, this topic is insane. As for my spelling, I am well known for being a horrible speller. I'm the Lois Lane of journalism--damn my dyslexia--but it's nothing I can't pay an editor to fix. Thanks to everyone who researched the topic. You guys are amazing.

SDGossipScene 1 The Reader 0

Jay, I really want a cartoon pic of me.

0

DaveMaass March 3, 2010 @ 3:13 p.m.

I wish refriedgringo wasn't so obsessed with me.

I don't have a pony in this game. I always thought SD Gossip Scene sucked.

0

David Dodd March 3, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

Ha! Dave, you rascal, are you sweet on me? Why, I haven't been over to your place since you wrote a bunch of trash about the Reader! I'm flattered than I'm in your thoughts. By the way, when's the next blog entry about the Reader? I'm sure those types of entries get the most attention over at SD CityBeat...

0

PistolPete March 3, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.

Funny you should mention that, refried...the CB website has been awfully quiet for awhile now. It's been two days since I wrote this and nary a response... http://lastblogonearth.com/2010/03/01/jiggaboo-jones/

The recent comments from Last Blog On Earth: Sammi Skolmoski on Interview with Sara Quin of Tegan & Sara @ 5:50pm on March 1st

Myself on Market anarchists vs. the taxman @ 2:51pm on March 1st

Myself on Jigaboo Jones releases "Nigga Night" footage @ 2:48pm on March 1st

Dave Maass on Market anarchists vs. the taxman @ 2:45pm on March 1st

and

Kelly Davis on Jigaboo Jones releases "Nigga Night" footage @ 10:15am on March 1st

Almost 2 1/2 days since someone commented on anything over there on the blogosphere. I've contributed at least 50 comments over here alone today.

0

David Dodd March 3, 2010 @ 4:24 p.m.

I haven't been, Pete. Maass counts me as a fan, but honestly, I don't feel one way or another about him. If he ever wrote something that knocked my socks off, I would man up and tell him. And I hope he does, because i love to read good writing. I find it funny that he centers his Reader angst on me. I don't write negative blog entries about SD CityBeat, after all.

I think that Kelly Davis, if anyone over there ruffles my feathers, deserves a prize for competative negativity. One evening, just out of sheer boredom, I searched and found a number of places where she insulted this publication. Maass just writes for them, but Davis has an axe to grind. When I was a youngster I learned not to burn those bridges, because one never knows when one might be banging on the competition's door looking for a job...

Of course, Davis is "pro-abortion", whatever that means, and claims that she would never work for Holman. Lines in the sand. Funny how the wind blows them clean over time.

0

PistolPete March 3, 2010 @ 4:35 p.m.

So very true, refried. The lag time on getting this site to pop up today is really hinky. It took me almost 45 minutes to get back online here after I dropped the rent off...weird.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close