Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

[Middleman]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

As always, I acknowledge Burl, Richard, Nancy, etc., as outstanding and talented journalists.
That said, by identifying themselves, they limit what they can contribute on this board. They obviously don't have total freedom to criticize the S-B, just like Jeffrey Green can't zing the Advertiser. Without the ability to self-mock, the posts come across as pro-company, even though that might not be the intent.
Worst of all, it limits them from providing insights into the year's most important story: the S-B contract negotiations. What happens with the S-B contract affects the local industry and the importance of the union. People in the biz want to know if the money lost through the "voluntary" cuts will be restored. If there is money to buy new papers, why can't the staff receive competitive wages? Is there anger? Acceptance? We'll never know, because giving up anonymity means diminishing their critical voice. And that's a shame.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

Haina ia mai ana ka puana la
This poem is abbreviated ecetera bla-di-blah
As a tangent has been jumped and we forget the topic that we were on
The Honolulu Advertiser
Or was that about the Bulletin
Or maybe we are simpletons who should pick pua for Algernon

Good god, that may be the most brilliant posting I have ever read, on this or any other site. To adapt "The Highwayman" AND to bring it to a mele-type conclusion...excuse the expression, Admin, but that is a fucking work of art!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

Having been a target of my share of harsh posts back in my Weekly days, and having responded in kind, I'd have to say that there's some truth to the "thin-skinned" charge, at least in my case.

Mr. Carlson, welcome back to the discussions once again. How are things going for you, since your return to the Mainland?

Your former position with the Weekly gives you a unique perspective on discussions of journalism and newspaper publication - I hope you won't hesitate to share it further on HT.

No sarcasm attached to those statements whatsoever.

[kimo55]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

leo, you are soooo sarcastic. clever too, ah you, the way ya closed that post.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

leo, you are soooo sarcastic. clever too, ah you, the way ya closed that post.

But am I "snarky"? How about "violent"? (More likely, "boring.")

[808golfer]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

As always, I acknowledge Burl, Richard, Nancy, etc., as outstanding and talented journalists.
That said, by identifying themselves, they limit what they can contribute on this board. They obviously don't have total freedom to criticize the S-B, just like Jeffrey Green can't zing the Advertiser. Without the ability to self-mock, the posts come across as pro-company, even though that might not be the intent.
Worst of all, it limits them from providing insights into the year's most important story: the S-B contract negotiations. What happens with the S-B contract affects the local industry and the importance of the union. People in the biz want to know if the money lost through the "voluntary" cuts will be restored. If there is money to buy new papers, why can't the staff receive competitive wages? Is there anger? Acceptance? We'll never know, because giving up anonymity means diminishing their critical voice. And that's a shame.

This thread is just to good for me to sit back. I'm actually going to write more than a one liner.

You all may be right about staffers at S-B not actually being free to criticize the S-B, after all they are the rank and file. However, Mr. Green is a different story. His position as Senior VP makes him the #2 out of 900 or so employees. I would think he's free to say anything he wants (which we've seen). When others speak they speak for themselves, when Jeff Green speaks he's speaking for Honolulu Advertiser and Gannett (his employer). Like it or not, he's doing so due to the nature of his high level position. He’s their representative on HT.

It's interesting that only you keep mentioning the S-B contract negotiations and long ago wage cuts. The point about Black buying a paper in Ohio and it's alleged relationship to S-B wage issues shows a great deal of lack of awareness.

Hasn't the Advertiser employees been getting the smallest wage increases in recent memory? At a time when nearly a 100 million was spent on a new printing facility and billions more on Gannet acquisitions.

The bottom line?

Enough of the point and counter point. It's obvious where folks preferences are, and there's nothing wrong with having a preference.

[MadAzza]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

As always, I acknowledge Burl, Richard, Nancy, etc., as outstanding and talented journalists.

Burl and Richard, yeah, but I'm faking it.

[buzz1941]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

That said, by identifying themselves, they limit what they can contribute on this board.

Dishonesty is the best policy? What world do you live in?

[Middleman]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

I live in the same world as you — a world where it's not a great career move to publicly criticize the people who sign my checks.
I've gone on the record many times as praising you. I love your work, and I know many people who have praised you for having genius qualities. You're a good person.
But the fact is, because you've identified yourself, you can't criticize the S-B publicly, nor should you. And that limits what you can say here. And when you can critique other organizations but not your own, that creates the perception of being pro-company. Again, that might not be your true stance, but that's the perception.

[buzz1941]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

Point taken, although I actually have criticised my own company on occasion. For example, our oversight concerning our archives.

I'm afraid I still don't know why someone has to go undercover to support their own workplace. There's nothing wrong with backing your employer. If I worked at the Tizer, I would too. Support the home team! But I don't, and when secret Tizer operatives whine because their paper is being criticised, it's not about them, it's about their product. Get a grip.

Also note that I don't generally diss Tizer staff, unless its Gannett management. (Maybe I just don't understand newspaper executives who hate what newspapers stand for.) I worked for Gannett myself for many years, back in the day when they were actually trying to produce a quality product rather than stifle competition.

I also find it hard to believe that Gannett would give a rat's keester about what is said on this forum. It's a real Bambi-vs-Godzilla situation. After all, we kept up a near-daily blog of Gannett's horrible, illegal nastiness in the newspaper separation, and Gannett didn't respond in kind at all. And why should they? We are just one little underdog barking in the wilderness. All we did was make the facts public.

(Now that I think about it, they could have only responded by denying reality. Silence really was the best policy!)

And I still think that person in the picture looks like your most excellent reporter Bev Creamer.

[dick]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

Burl and Richard, yeah, but I'm faking it.

Somebody just handed me a camera...

Sure I might feel a little uneasy biting the hand that feeds me, but at no time has management or anyone else at this paper ever told me what I can and cannot write on a forum or whatever. Of course there are some things that I wouldn't write about (upcoming stories/promos, whatever... specific pay issues, etc.).

This is quite a nice place to work, thank you, which is also why there isn't much negative criticism coming from me.

[buzz1941]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

This is quite a nice place to work, thank you, which is also why there isn't much negative criticism coming from me.

And the photographer summed it up better than the writer. Ditto.

[LikaNui]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

Having been a target of my share of harsh posts back in my Weekly days, and having responded in kind, I'd have to say that there's some truth to the "thin-skinned" charge, at least in my case.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to me, and our debate over the treatment of that intern.
What the Weakly folks need to remember, Ragnar, and what we've said here repeatedly, is that most of us lay the blame for most of the Weakly's problems on the publisher. Anyone who wants to know the history through the eyes of former Weakly staffers, see this link for Part A and then this link for Part B. That pretty much shows where the blame lies.
Of course, it's hard to take The Weakly seriously when you get things like editor Becky Maltby's article last week where, pretending she's a dog, she writes "I want to sniff your crotch and hear you laugh. Maybe you'll rub my tummy."
Don't even think of comparing the Weakly to the dailies!
As for allegations of various HT'ers bias for one or the other of the dailies, it's obvious that the Advertiser (thanks to Gannett's deep pockets and their infamous reputation) is the 800-pound gorilla here, so of course they're going to take more heat than the Star-Bulletin. When you're #1, you're the biggest target for taking shots. And as others have said, the S-B gets more sympathy for being the underdog. Nothing surprising there at all.

[ragnar]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

"What the Weakly folks need to remember, Ragnar, and what we've said here repeatedly, is that most of us lay the blame for most of the Weakly's problems on the publisher."
We've gone around and around on this, LikaNui, and I still don't agree. It may be that you put the blame on the publisher in some fundamental sense, but I think that an honest appraisal of your posts (and those of others) shows that, whatever their origins, you take your frustrations out on whoever happens to be working there at the time. Whatever. That's fine. It just seems silly to deny it.

As far as comparing the Weekly to the dailies: I don't and didn't, at least not in any direct sense. And I think that's my point, really. For all that you and others insist that the Weekly can't be compared to the dailies,you seem to do it all the time. The truth is that there is no comparison. They have different audiences, different missions, and - let's not kid ourselves - different budgets.

What I did say is that the Weekly compares at least as favorably to, say, SF Weekly as the Advertiser does to the San Francisco Chronicle. And that, I think, is the proper comparison.

Ultimately, it has always seemed to me that the balance of opinion at HT tends to lavish praise on the dailies for their successes much more than it does on the Weekly. I just got Catherine Lo's expose on the "failed coup" at City Hall in my mailbox this week...good stuff. As is her ongoing coverage of development issues on Oahu. It's fair enough to rip a paper when it does poorly, and I think all local papers get that treatment. I just don't see the same attention to the Weekly's successes as I do to those of the other papers.

A quicky aside to Leo: thanks for so ably proving my point re: trolls. And by the way: while it is nice to be "back" on the Mainland, you may be interested to know that I grew up in Kuliouou.

[buzz1941]

Re: Big fat self-valentine for the Advertiser

while it is nice to be "back" on the Mainland, you may be interested to know that I grew up in Kuliouou.

If I'm not mistaken, Ragnar is the scion of legendary local public-relations genius Doug Carlson.
I've taken shots at the Weekly too (and been shot at in return, and in print, not in a chat group!) but the publication does do good work on occasion. Most of us just wish it was more often and more consistant.