I can't wait for October 10th

[Ed W]

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

[waterboy]

I forget. Tell me again why you expect a privately owned newspaper whose future success is closely tied to the prosperity of the community it serves, would give equal time to the persistent anti-tax, anti-growth, nattering nabobs of negativism view of this project? (not to imply, sir, that you are in that group []).

If they had evidence of it being illegal, fraudulently conceived and executed or part of some nefarious mystery, then as journalists they would have an obligation to expose that. And they would. Remember, Great Plaines DID make the headlines even though the World owners were players. But just because you're against something doesn't mean you get equal time in a newspaper. Maybe publicly funded TV but not print.

Next you'll be wondering why Tulsa People and Oklahoma Magazine aren't pimping for the nays. Or why Urban Tulsa IS pimping for the nays.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree Ed.

I don't ever remember an idea that has split our town more than this. Good people on both sides are acting as if this was the most important vote of their life.

It is only four tenths of a penny. The third penny sales tax that we vote on every five years is two and a half times that.

Only ten more days...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I forget. Tell me again why you expect a privately owned newspaper whose future success is closely tied to the prosperity of the community it serves, would give equal time to the persistent anti-tax, anti-growth, nattering nabobs of negativism view of this project? (not to imply, sir, that you are in that group []).

If they had evidence of it being illegal, fraudulently conceived and executed or part of some nefarious mystery, then as journalists they would have an obligation to expose that. And they would. Remember, Great Plaines DID make the headlines even though the World owners were players. But just because you're against something doesn't mean you get equal time in a newspaper. Maybe publicly funded TV but not print.

Next you'll be wondering why Tulsa People and Oklahoma Magazine aren't pimping for the nays. Or why Urban Tulsa IS pimping for the nays.

Actually, a personal conversation with the publisher of UTW reveals he's voting for the tax.  They have given both sides plenty of column space, though I don't understand why Terry Simonson has been noticeably quiet since late July.  They had something from him in there every week for about five weeks.

I think every publication is going to have an editorial agenda to promote issues which serve them well or their personal philosophies.  Growing up, it seems that most of the self-serving was done on the op-ed page, not disguised as hard news as it is done now.

Honestly, if we didn't get the World at work, I'd never read it anymore.  I get better local news on the radio or on TulsaNow. []

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I forget. Tell me again why you expect a privately owned newspaper whose future success is closely tied to the prosperity of the community it serves, would give equal time to the persistent anti-tax, anti-growth, nattering nabobs of negativism view of this project? (not to imply, sir, that you are in that group []).

If they had evidence of it being illegal, fraudulently conceived and executed or part of some nefarious mystery, then as journalists they would have an obligation to expose that. And they would. Remember, Great Plaines DID make the headlines even though the World owners were players. But just because you're against something doesn't mean you get equal time in a newspaper. Maybe publicly funded TV but not print.

Next you'll be wondering why Tulsa People and Oklahoma Magazine aren't pimping for the nays. Or why Urban Tulsa IS pimping for the nays.

Actually, a personal conversation with the publisher of UTW reveals he's voting for the tax.  They have given both sides plenty of column space, though I don't understand why Terry Simonson has been noticeably quiet since late July.  They had something from him in there every week for about five weeks.

I think every publication is going to have an editorial agenda to promote issues which serve them well or their personal philosophies.  Growing up, it seems that most of the self-serving was done on the op-ed page, not disguised as hard news as it is done now.

Honestly, if we didn't get the World at work, I'd never read it anymore.  I get better local news on the radio or on TulsaNow. []

You caught me there. I don't regularly read UT because, frankly, I'm not their demo. The few I had seen were dominated by critical Bates columns.

I do think the River tax is hard news for the local area. They have made it hard news anyway.
Even though I am not a big World supporter (I once worked for them) if you peruse it carefully it is usually the best source for local info. and really more likely to be a "just the facts, ma'am" opertion. I never trust details to be accurate online or the radio. Seen too much firsthand that was severely twisted on the airwaves and the net.

Print can be carried around, circled with a red pen and easily embarrassed. Makes them work harder on details IMO. I wish the reporters were a little more investigative and less cynical but not my call.

[Rico]

Originally posted by waterboy.

quote:

Even though I am not a big World supporter (I once worked for them) if you peruse it carefully it is usually the best source for local info. and really more likely to be a "just the facts, ma'am" opertion.

So....... I have to draw the conclusion from this statement.. that the Sunday article regarding the "Chattanooga River Project"...
was mostly a parallel of where the River project in Tulsa will lead us... as implied....


From one farmer to another......"Hogwash..!

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by waterboy.

quote:

Even though I am not a big World supporter (I once worked for them) if you peruse it carefully it is usually the best source for local info. and really more likely to be a "just the facts, ma'am" opertion.

So....... I have to draw the conclusion from this statement.. that the Sunday article regarding the "Chattanooga River Project"...
was mostly a parallel of where the River project in Tulsa will lead us... as implied....


From one farmer to another......"Hogwash..!

I also did not think that was a valid comparison. If they had shown that the nature and operation of that river was similar to the Arkansas...maybe. But don't confuse their advocacy journalism with their factual coverage of little known events.

They have a large committment of reporters in many different areas that by default are going to find out and report on more than the other media. We may not like HOW they report, but I think their reporters are smarter and more tuned in to local news than all the others.

However, I find it odd that NO media as far as I can tell, reported on the train wreck over in the West Tulsa yards last week. Apparently a tanker car was squashed between two other cars and de-railed causing a huge backup and a week's worth of work. Fortunately it wasn't filled with flammables. With all the concern of terrorism, the refineries nearby and the military equipment transported through there, one would have thought it was newsworthy. Channel 8 looks right down on the scene. Did I miss that story?

[Ed W]

Maybe this should be a thread by itself, bus since we're talking about the Tulsa World, do any of you think the river vote story has pushed other newsworthy information off their pages?  I'm thinking about the proposed bridge across the Arkansas.  I haven't heard anything about it recently.

Just talk amongst yourselves.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

Steve, the complaint when the plan was introduced was that there were not enough details. That there were too many questions unanswered and on and on. Well, the local newspaper took it upon themselve to find and print those answers. Heck, they even printed the negative views of those answers! One might say they were responsive to the publics demands. But still, they are criticized for doing that.

Everyone hates their hometown newspaper.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

Steve, the complaint when the plan was introduced was that there were not enough details. That there were too many questions unanswered and on and on. Well, the local newspaper took it upon themselve to find and print those answers. Heck, they even printed the negative views of those answers! One might say they were responsive to the publics demands. But still, they are criticized for doing that.

Everyone hates their hometown newspaper.

The issues were always vividly clear to me from the onset, without further explanation from the World.  The Tulsa World, with their series of question and answer articles, just has further perpetuated their "vote yes" bias.  The paper's slanted stance is an insult to those of us that consider ourselves educated and have a mind of our own.  The World is the only surviving major daily in Tulsa and they should present facts only and leave the judgement up to us voters.  They can present editorial opinion on various subjects, but not beat the issue to death as they have done with the river tax issue.  They are printing articles as "news" but the clear intention is to promote the passage of the river tax.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

Steve, the complaint when the plan was introduced was that there were not enough details. That there were too many questions unanswered and on and on. Well, the local newspaper took it upon themselve to find and print those answers. Heck, they even printed the negative views of those answers! One might say they were responsive to the publics demands. But still, they are criticized for doing that.

Everyone hates their hometown newspaper.

The issues were always vividly clear to me from the onset, without further explanation from the World.  The Tulsa World, with their series of question and answer articles, just has further perpetuated their "vote yes" bias.  The paper's slanted stance is an insult to those of us that consider ourselves educated and have a mind of our own.  The World is the only surviving major daily in Tulsa and they should present facts only and leave the judgement up to us voters.  They can present editorial opinion on various subjects, but not beat the issue to death as they have done with the river tax issue.  They are printing articles as "news" but the clear intention is to promote the passage of the river tax.

Interesting concept for a metro newspaper. You should print your own newspaper and see if it works. No one else has ever done it, but it sounds nice. No insults, no bias, no judgements, just disseminating information to an educated public. Like Weekly Reader did back in the 50's in public schools. Then we could talk CBS, ABC and Fox into doing it on TV.

Honestly, the newspaper is not PBS. It receives no government money. If they aren't serving the public they wither away. They can, do and should print whatever they think will make them a profit and still pay for the lawsuits. What would people have to complain about without them.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

Good call.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

...so maybe the Tulsa World will get back to reportage rather than cheerleading.  The relentless drumbeating for the river tax is getting annoying.  I guess I shouldn't expect more from the local plutocrats. The rest of us ordinary people are just supposed to follow the advice of our betters, vote the tax in, and dutifully pay it.

On the other hand, if the voters give a resounding NO, will the World's editorial page print a we-were-wrong-to-support-this-tax story?  I won't hold my breath.

I agree Ed W.  I used to subscribe to the Tribune, and switched to the World when it became the only daily option for a newspaper in Tulsa.  We all know by now what the World management's position is on the river tax, but I find the daily barage of pro-tax articles and editorials to be very offensive.  Being the only major daily newspaper in town, they should take a more neutral stance, or at least end the daily river tax rah rah.  My World subscription comes up for its annual renewal in about 20 days; I have subscribed to a local Tulsa newspaper for the past 35 years and am now seriously considering ending that habit.

Good call.

Well lets look at this closely. TulsaNow is the only "major forum" in town. It receives a "daily barrage" of anti-river, anti-development, duplicative thread postings. Any effort to use facts and logic to counter a post is met with multiple anti responses. That is "offensive" to some. Makes it seem like this is just a website for a political movement. It is flooding effort to keep others from starting threads that might enlighten people.

This barrage keeps regular discussions of other newsworthy events from being posted. The people making the theads have obvious biases, insult the intelligence of the educated readers, use snide name calling, distortions of truth, outright lies and pander to the masses.

Sound familiar? There are more parallels but this is enough to ask if pot is talking to kettle.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
That is "offensive" to some.

Yes it can be offensive at times.  Welcome to America.  Until we all start speaking French and eating cheese, it will remain that way.

Does the presence of "offensive" posts push other newsworthy subjects from being discussed here?  I doubt it.  It is as simple as starting a new thread.  This is a different story with the Whirled.

Now, Ed W., you've stirred the pot, now go draw another cartoon and quit causing trouble.  You don't want to be put on double secret probation do you?