So what's up with the Weekly?

[dick]

Re: weekly excuse for a noosepepah

When I saw that, then read it...

All I could do was laugh...

The downward spiral at that place continues to churn...

It's sad though, when one stops to think about it... Burl's writing was the most important thing to cover from last week? A sad state of affairs, indeed!

At least his stuff is well-written...

[buzz1941]

Re: weekly excuse for a noosepepah

Did they spell my name correctly?

Either way, thanks for publicising the Star-Bulletin, guys!

[1stwahine]

Re: weekly excuse for a noosepepah

Dey are a sad sad newspaper. No. I take dat back. Dey not a newspaper.

Btw: Da picture of da old sewer cover was taken by a guy who goes around taking pictures of all kinds of things. He sends it to all places. Apparently, dey da only ones who thought it was "New's Worthy?"

Auwe!

Burl Burlingame ROCKS!

Auntie Lynn

[LikaNui]

Re: weekly excuse for a noosepepah

Did they spell my name correctly? Either way, thanks for publicising the Star-Bulletin, guys!

Kimo, thanks for bringing this up. I was going to do it (as you all probably guessed) but just haven't had the time yet.
And Burl/Buzz, yes, they spelled your name right. And I'm going to direct our HT readers attention to what you (Burl) wrote in Ian Lind's wonderful blog at http://www.ilind.net/2006/april/apr23-29.html :

On April 27:

Ian Lind: And, likewise, from Star-Bulletin writer Burl Burlingame, who defends the choice of perspective and writing style adopted for the Merrie Monarch coverage:

Burl Burlingame: Sigh. Covering the Merrie Monarch as a writer is one of those exercises in futility. No matter how you do it, someone will take exception.
I see that your note writer was in hula class. Of course. But a newspaper is not in the business of telling people already in the know exactly what they want to hear. (Unless, like the other paper, you're hellbent on fawning). No, we're writing for the other folks, the people with little or no knowledge about the subject, and try to do so in a way that gets them interested. You, of course, know better -- you can't let the subjects of a story dictate the tone and style of the reporting. And if you're too "inside baseball," you become a specialist instead of a generalist publication.
We made the decision to be descriptive and impressionistic, and write for readers who might be curious about the subject but basically don't know anything. As for myself, yes, I do know better, but I'm not writing for myself. I'm writing for the reader. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE JOB.
One of the most common complaints about newspapering is that the questions (and answers received) are well below the level of knowledge the reporter certainly has after years on the the job. This comes from both left and right, and criticizes coverage not for what it is, but for what that reader thinks it should have been. But when you start pursuing an agenda, you lose objectivity.
I wasn't there to be a press agent for the halau. I was there as an observer for the average reader, someone who doesn't know an 'ili'ili from a kala'au, but who just might develop an interest in hula from this admittedly simplistic coverage.
Hula is an insular world, inwardly focused, and there are folks who would rather that the outside world either bugger off or gush glowing press releases. It's a control issue. These are the same folks who have criticized Uncle George Na'ope for his lifetime achievement of popularizing hula.

ATTABOY, Burl!!!
The Weakly wasted a full page and a half attacking you for nothing.
I'm curious -- did anyone from the Weakly even bother calling you on the phone to ask you about this?
I think I know the answer.

[buzz1941]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

No. But people at newspapers are really hard to get ahold of, y'know.

I'm told the article's author once worked at the Star-Bulletin but was let go for some reason. I have absolutely no memory of her.

I'm told also that the article insinuates that I'm gay. I'm not. I state that with all the collective authority of personal experience -- and an innuendo no citizen should be compelled to defend against. But what a class act on their part!

Alas, this tells you more about the Weekly than about the Star-Bulletin. I shouldn't comment further, as I'm still waiting to read the Weekly's MM coverage.

On the other hand, not many Merrie Monarch stories are still being discussed -- or dissed -- two weeks after they appear!

[kimo55]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

I'm told also that the article insinuates that I'm gay. I'm not.

hell, not even close! In fact, I don't remember seeing you in any manner of jovial mood for years!

[dick]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

>>>I don't know you, Mr. Burlingame. I know your name and I know your work. If I labeled you based on what I know about you, I would probably be wrong. If I labeled you based on what I don't know about you, I would be guilty of gross indecency.
<<<

That came from post #24 on the Weakly's Editor Flames Hawaii Threads thread...

Strange... Haug worked at the 'Bull in 2004. Summer only, I believe... short-lived...

...No recollection of knowing Burl? Burl is epic at the paper. He's there 24/7 ferkrissakes... And you never met him? Don't even know him? Makes me wonder what you were doing while there.

[Palolo Joe]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

I think there was more of the Star-Bulletin article there than the drivel Haug was trying to pass off as snarky commentary.

The thinly-veiled gay inference was completely inappropriate, as well.

[1stwahine]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

...No recollection of knowing Burl? Burl is epic at the paper. He's there 24/7 ferkrissakes... And you never met him? Don't even know him? Makes me wonder what you were doing while there.

(cough, cough) Haug wuz doing the "Lani Moo Moo" in the Bath Room!

Auntie pUpULe

[zztype]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

Hey, I just saw that issue tonight. Somebody in the newsroom passed me a copy. All I could do was shake my head. That's their cover story? Sheesh. Got nothing else to write about? Ohhhh-kay.

I looked all through that issue for the Weakly's own coverage of the Merrie Monarch that I might critique it. Hmmm. Not there. Maybe next issue?

Blaine

[Leo Lakio]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

So, let me see if I understand ---

The Honolulu Weekly, rather than reporting on a major event, instead wrote a story about someone else's coverage - and made it their cover story?

What a lame attempt at journalism.

Sounds like the Honolulu Weekly has gotten as bad as the Seattle Weekly. I used to say about that particular free paper, "at least you get your money's worth." Now, I think they owe you money back.

(BTW, Burl - I enjoyed your wrap-up feature, and praised it in a thread about the festival.)

[pzarquon]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

I'm as big a fan of the Star-Bulletin as they come. I love Burl, and miss his old blog a great deal, even so long after the fact. But lest anyone think everyone here is a blind Bulletin booster, I gotta say I was also kinda put off by the specific writing the Weekly targeted.

If Burl was specifically writing up the Merrie Monarch for, say, Parade magazine or USA Today, it would make sense. But considering the Star-Bulletin's significant credentials in covering local and Hawaiian events and issues (and the paper's largely hula-aware readership), it felt really out of place.

That said, the fact that the Honolulu Weekly made its critique of Burl's piece it's cover story ("Offensive Journey"), basically devoting more attention to another newspaper's content rather than generating its own, is pretty sad. Just about the worst "cover story" yet, frankly.

[buzz1941]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

It was a judgement call. The idea was to be different than the competition, which largely consists of in-the-know boosterism. We wanted to try a blank slate in the writing, particularly since our pictures -- once again! -- totally slayed the other guys. Whether it worked or not is largely in the mind of whoever read the piece. (One comment from a couple of older Hawaiian ladies stuck with me -- they said it was the first coverage of the MM that they'd read that made them want to attend the event.)
Unfortunately, one of the problems of covering the MM is the extreme deadline, which is about 10-15 minutes after the close of competition each night. You wind up filing your notes and impressions instead of crafting a story. In this case, I tried to imagine I was describing what was happening to someone who couldn't see the action, like covering this highly visual event on the radio.
But forgoshsakes, this event is weeks in the past already. I'm puzzled not just that the Weekly wasted ink and paper on someone else's news, but also on such OLD news. But our circulation manager thanks them.

[1stwahine]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

Ooops! Juss got up. Delete.

Mahalo,

Auntie Lynn

[dick]

Re: So what's up with the Weekly?

It was a judgement call. The idea was to be different than the competition, which largely consists of in-the-know boosterism. \

I've read it (the 'Tizer coverage) for years and was sickened the whole time... Complete kiss-ass swill... Burl's writing was the first time I read something from MM that was independant and real... Fun and exciting... Something (I dare say) that the Weakly (sic) and perhaps the other paper would love to have written...

Do I smell sour grapes? On more than one level? It all has been duley noted, mind you.

And it's interesting that we've heard from Burl... yet not a peep from the Weakly (sic) people... hiding behind stunning mediocrity...

But who gives a crap anyway... Me... Burl... just some haoles, fresh off the boat... working at the "offensive" paper...

Right?