No defense needed (tho thanks, CF) - only a link to the Reader's Jumping Turtle story which was referenced (but apparently misread - or UNread?) by lemongroovy -
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jan/27/bl…
In the article, only the club owner states his HOPE that the JT "is not going out of business" - everyone knows that quoting a guy doesn't mean the writer and the Reader agree. And then the owner himself presages that the JT WILL likely be closed by the City, any day, BEFORE publication of the CB report that LG is so proud of!
The owner told the Reader that the City does indeed "have the power to do so anytime they want...Probably the only reason they haven’t revoked us yet is because they’re in the process of changing lawyers.”
The owner was right. So the Reader reported the impending closure days BEFORE it happened. CB's report came AFTER. Since lemongroovy makes such a case for the importance of being first ---
No wonder our guest commentator didn't include a link to our report - debate is far too easy when the other debater makes my own point for me.
CB is frequently a fine paper. They have many strengths and merits, and they've certainly broken their fair share of stories, music and otherwise, before the Reader. The city of SD is far better off by having multiple pop culture weeklies, each with their own strengths.
So, if someone repping for CB wants to stack up apples against apples again by comparing "rival" newspaper reports on the same topic...
...next time, don't forget to bring your apples. — March 13, 2010 5 a.m.
None
Only plausible explanation for Blues Brothers 2000, for that matter.....— March 13, 2010 5:42 a.m.
Party Crasher Returns - elsewhere
Thanks - I set out to keep a daily single-topic first person blog. However, the experiment quickly failed and I ended up doing the same kinda thing I do at Rock Around the Town. So that's where I'll uploaded anything I otherwise would have put here --- same JAS, same channel. (Auto)biography channel over and out ----------— March 13, 2010 5:20 a.m.
Burning of Bridges
No defense needed (tho thanks, CF) - only a link to the Reader's Jumping Turtle story which was referenced (but apparently misread - or UNread?) by lemongroovy - http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jan/27/bl… In the article, only the club owner states his HOPE that the JT "is not going out of business" - everyone knows that quoting a guy doesn't mean the writer and the Reader agree. And then the owner himself presages that the JT WILL likely be closed by the City, any day, BEFORE publication of the CB report that LG is so proud of! The owner told the Reader that the City does indeed "have the power to do so anytime they want...Probably the only reason they haven’t revoked us yet is because they’re in the process of changing lawyers.” The owner was right. So the Reader reported the impending closure days BEFORE it happened. CB's report came AFTER. Since lemongroovy makes such a case for the importance of being first --- No wonder our guest commentator didn't include a link to our report - debate is far too easy when the other debater makes my own point for me. CB is frequently a fine paper. They have many strengths and merits, and they've certainly broken their fair share of stories, music and otherwise, before the Reader. The city of SD is far better off by having multiple pop culture weeklies, each with their own strengths. So, if someone repping for CB wants to stack up apples against apples again by comparing "rival" newspaper reports on the same topic... ...next time, don't forget to bring your apples.— March 13, 2010 5 a.m.
Burning of Bridges
CB's writeup on this story is fine, tho it leans more heavily on reprinting from the band's own blog than our account. Nothing wrong with that, since it's quoting the source subject. I'd be hard pressed to say the Reader's take is that much better than CB's - but there's only so much one can say about a single incident that was already well-covered on at least three other blogs before either CB or the Reader could even put pen to paper. The copycat/"rewriting" accusation, tho, is demonstrably laughable --- The unfortunate incident happened on a Friday, Chad turned in a report before Monday night/Tuesday morning, and CityBeat's story didn't appear until either Tuesday afternoon March 2nd or Wednesday March 3rd (hard to tell, the way they date website posts differently from the print edition). Just because a music story gets the attention of two writers, from two papers, doesn't mean one must be copying the other. Especially since the Reader story was already written and turned in before CB's could have appeared anywhere outside their office. The Reader was already filled for the March 3rd issue, so Chad's report ended up in March 10. We usually tend to work two to eight days in advance of press deadline -- If someone wants to pay my regular freelance wage for an hour of my time, I'll gladly make a list of 50 music stories the Reader reported before CityBeat - and not one time did someone repping the Reader then go over to the CB website to screech "Copycat! Nyah nyah!" Let alone twice in a row, like poor ol' lemongroovy, whose cluelessness is now on display for all to see and chuckle at. Pay me an additional hour's fee, and I'll happily list 50 MORE music stories from recent Readers that CB NEVER covered. I'd make and post both lists for free, but modesty (and another pending deadline) prohibits --— March 12, 2010 10:25 a.m.
Pre-gaming
RE #49 "Jay Allen DOES get it...[snip]...He did the right thing. He followed the story, and he shared it with us." Thanks, Fred! I welcome the dissenting comments, tho, and it matters not to me whether they're posted on my blog or on others' or on story pages such as this. Some commentators apparently have the mistaken impression that me encouraging website discourse is somehow benefiting, promoting, or "getting attention" for me personally. In actuality, lots of website activity means that the site itself becomes stronger, more seen by new visitors, and - yes - more profitable. Why in the world would someone COMPLAIN about comments that end with questions that invite further discourse?! That's the not-so-secret of success behind most every newspaper website operating in the free world. It's not like I provoke comment with just ANY old thang, just cuz - I studiously only post blogs and/or comment on topics I'm interested in. The "Clash of the Crashers" interested me, and it seemed nobody else had noticed the dueling mastheads. I've never even met Josh Board, so I could only laugh at being threatened with reprisal for "aligning" myself with him somehow, just by mentioning his name (before I'd even quoted his later email response!). It was especially funny since it seemed clear to all but a couple of confused commentators that everything I said on the topic was ultimately endorsing the Reader's Crasher above any and all copycat-competing columns elsewhere. Terrific to hear from Chad that he'll be doing more Crashers - the Reader's Great Experiment in citizen journalism has paid off yet again, with another new columnist hired. Looking forward to more 'n' more --- Now PLEASE play nice, good people, and don't forget to turn off the lights when you leave ----— March 12, 2010 12:52 a.m.
i guess i just wish...../Pistol Pete
Peace backatcha, Nan! I have a screen grab of most of the PistolPete3 comments from this blog thread before they were deleted - if you want the cache file, just hit my contact button and I'll email you back with it. Gawd bless Google cache (even if it only works for around 6 hours for moderated comment forums). RE #50, thanks RefriedGringo! Being mistaken for you isn't a problem - my credit report once mistook me for "Deceased," and that was far more a test of my epically serene nature...— March 12, 2010 12:08 a.m.
Satire Saunters into the Reader! A word on Walter Mencken’s February 24 installment of “S.D. on the Q.T.”
Assuming we agree on the def of "snarky," then you're probably right. Meant it with a friendly wink, tho - I hold no ill will toward anyone on this site, and I certainly mean no disrespect. My serene nature and general refusal to be mean spirited, despite whatever provocation, has been pretty consistent 'round these hee-yah cyberparts. I echo SDaniel's curiosity to hear directly from the author of the QT column. This seems as good a segue as any to mention that, while some writers crave feedback and interaction with their readers, others need much convincing to take part in post-publication chatter, especially when it's documented for all to see on the website. I used to fit in the latter category - I didn't exactly need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the comment boards, but neither did I feel like my stories needed more sentences from ME, not once I typed that final period (or exclamation point, or - as I'm wont to do in excess - a question mark). The inclination is to "let the work stand or fall on its own merit (or lack thereof)," and leave all criticism and commentary to others. So a blog entry such as this is probably a very good way to entreat interaction from Reader contributors who've otherwise been mostly or completely silent. I've talked to several staffers and perennial freelance contribs about why they do or don't take part on the website - a thoughtful, insightful and well written piece like "Satire Saunters...." makes a good case for jumping into the comment pool.— March 11, 2010 5 a.m.
Satire Saunters into the Reader! A word on Walter Mencken’s February 24 installment of “S.D. on the Q.T.”
?? Never claimed to be young OR cute - even waaay back when I MIGHT have (briefly) qualified as one or both! Back to this essay, very good point about "Sporting Box" regularly using satire. Even the Blurt column has done so, at least when that medicinal madman Richard Meltzer was contributing. It's a bit surprising to find that some people don't feel satire belongs in the Reader. My only contention is that it should be GOOD satire. I'd be hard pressed to define what constitutes "good," especially with the topic at hand so roundly covered above by SDaniels. Other than to fall back on the old "I know it when I see it" rule. I'll need to see more of it in QT before I can throw my wholehearted support behind the column and its contents ---— March 11, 2010 3:24 a.m.
Satire Saunters into the Reader! A word on Walter Mencken’s February 24 installment of “S.D. on the Q.T.”
Excellent essay! And I appreciate the clarity of reading it here as a fresh blog topic, as the QT comment threads so-far can be unwieldy --- I've been a bit confused and conflicted about the new QT column - it's clearly satire, but not consistently GOOD satire. Rather, it's sometimes great 'n' funny, but sometimes it's jes plain baffling. It's no fun to feel like you're missing an inside-joke that you SHOULD be inside on, being a well-read San Diegan who tries to keep up with what's up 'round town --- RE "Perhaps the author will respond, and let us know? :)" Be careful about using those question marks! Someone might pop up and accuse that "any person with half a brain would see as bait in an effort to generate more hits..." Not that there's anything WRONG with that! ("How DARE you make this website stronger, better, and more interesting by using questions to generate replies!")— March 11, 2010 2:06 a.m.
Psycho Willie vs. the Pyrate Punx
Now's as good a time as any to say "sorry I brought it up" ----— March 11, 2010 12:51 a.m.