Re: So what's up with the Weekly?
No need to apologize. I didn't get that impression from you at all, nor did I see anyone else here say anything negative about Wanda.
Again, no need to apologize. We all know who really owes you an apology.
Only one letter on the topic in today's new issue of the Weakly, and it was written by the elderly and always-eccentric Keith Haugen, who said (in part): "I thoroughly enjoyed Kawehi Haug's review. (...) The cover story in last week's Honolulu Weekly is the sort of writing that deserves recognition. I hope Kawehi wins an award for that effort."
Keith also writes "As an old writer and editor, it thrills me to see this quality of writing and editing. It is very refreshing."
Keith Haugen is probably the only person who found that attack on Burl to be "thrilling."
I also found it interesting that in Chris Haire's "Media Watch" column he mentions Ian Lind's blog (on a different topic). Since he's well aware of that blog, he undoubtedly saw Burl's response there regarding the Merrie Monarch coverage, which I quoted in an earlier post here. Burl's explanation was on Ian's blog well before the Weakly published their attack. Why, then, was Burl's explanation not included or even mentioned in the Weakly's attack, since the Weakly editor had already seen it?
Originally posted by buzz1941
I apologize if I'm edgy on this subject. Try explaining to your kids why their father was the subject of a mean-spirited assault for no apparent reason on the cover of a newspaper.
Only one letter on the topic in today's new issue of the Weakly, and it was written by the elderly and always-eccentric Keith Haugen, who said (in part): "I thoroughly enjoyed Kawehi Haug's review. (...) The cover story in last week's Honolulu Weekly is the sort of writing that deserves recognition. I hope Kawehi wins an award for that effort."
Keith also writes "As an old writer and editor, it thrills me to see this quality of writing and editing. It is very refreshing."
Keith Haugen is probably the only person who found that attack on Burl to be "thrilling."
I also found it interesting that in Chris Haire's "Media Watch" column he mentions Ian Lind's blog (on a different topic). Since he's well aware of that blog, he undoubtedly saw Burl's response there regarding the Merrie Monarch coverage, which I quoted in an earlier post here. Burl's explanation was on Ian's blog well before the Weakly published their attack. Why, then, was Burl's explanation not included or even mentioned in the Weakly's attack, since the Weakly editor had already seen it?
Comment