http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDLtBO9NgY
Enjoy!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
475 Response
This piece is pretty depressing. The idea of the evening news always appealed to me.
It disturbed me to hear the man considering news to be a "franchise." It also implies to the hard news is a burden on a NEWS PROGRAM. That smacks of irresponsibility to me.
The instant gratification idea is irresponsible. I know it's the future, but it bodes ill for the future of our field.
When he says that "journalists aren't going to follow the traditional path," he means that they're going to be untrained sensationalists. Case in point was the Rocket Boom guy. "I never was interested in being a journalist."
And the citizen media guy that they said was blurring the line between journalism and activism is totally wrong. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL AND JUST REPORT! You don't get to interject your opinion on news you're reporting.
A lot of this is just sickening to me, the idea of news as a business is disgusting.
And it makes me mad to think that the way I've been trained to do journalism my whole life, what I've paid a good deal of money for, is already becoming obsolete before I even enter the field.
It disturbed me to hear the man considering news to be a "franchise." It also implies to the hard news is a burden on a NEWS PROGRAM. That smacks of irresponsibility to me.
The instant gratification idea is irresponsible. I know it's the future, but it bodes ill for the future of our field.
When he says that "journalists aren't going to follow the traditional path," he means that they're going to be untrained sensationalists. Case in point was the Rocket Boom guy. "I never was interested in being a journalist."
And the citizen media guy that they said was blurring the line between journalism and activism is totally wrong. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL AND JUST REPORT! You don't get to interject your opinion on news you're reporting.
A lot of this is just sickening to me, the idea of news as a business is disgusting.
And it makes me mad to think that the way I've been trained to do journalism my whole life, what I've paid a good deal of money for, is already becoming obsolete before I even enter the field.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
J-425 In Class Exercise
How much does it cost to run for mayor of Spokane? More than one would probably expect.
Campaign finance totals were released this morning for the Spokane mayoral race, and more than $250,000 has been spent between the three candidates on their respective campaigns, according to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission's website.
Incumbent Dennis P. Hession has raised $157,895.89 and has thus far spent $$146,190.83, while his main opponent, Mary B. Verner has spent $$49,634.54 of the $51,864.02 she has raised to this point.
Alfred G. French II, who was eliminated in the Aug. 21 primary, had spent $54,654.52 of the $55,112.75 he had raised.
The bulk of Hession's support has come from utilities, capital companies and construction companies, while much of Verner's financial backing has come from several area tribes and private citizens.
Campaign finance totals were released this morning for the Spokane mayoral race, and more than $250,000 has been spent between the three candidates on their respective campaigns, according to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission's website.
Incumbent Dennis P. Hession has raised $157,895.89 and has thus far spent $$146,190.83, while his main opponent, Mary B. Verner has spent $$49,634.54 of the $51,864.02 she has raised to this point.
Alfred G. French II, who was eliminated in the Aug. 21 primary, had spent $54,654.52 of the $55,112.75 he had raised.
The bulk of Hession's support has come from utilities, capital companies and construction companies, while much of Verner's financial backing has come from several area tribes and private citizens.
Friday, September 21, 2007
J-425 Story 2
Nightclubs across Seattle breathed a guarded sigh of relief Monday as the City Council delayed implementation on a strict new ordinance until next year.
The council amended the measure with a vote of 5-4 to delay implementation for at least one year. After that period, the council would then vote once again on the proposal to make it official. The amended proposal then passed 6-3, according to the council’s website.
The ordinance was first introduced over a year ago by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, and called for a license for all nightclubs in Seattle city limits in addition to their business license.
That license would be required for their continued operation, and could be revoked by excessive noise, violence, and litter, according to David Yeaworth, staff member for councilwoman Sally Clark, one of the main supporters of the ordinance on the council.
“It is a victory,” said Tim Hatley, public affairs spokesman for the Seattle Nightclub and Musicians Association. “It was great that they went ahead and [delayed the ordinance]. We are eager to work with the city for solutions.”
When asked about the state of the current laws, Hatley replied, “I think that the rules in place are fine, but are there some examples where bars aren’t doing their jobs, sure.”
“People don’t go out until 11 or 12 anymore,” Hatley said. “This is a different generation.”
Supporters of the ordinance, however, were not as happy to see the proposal shelved.
“It was disappointing that it wasn’t culminated in a successful vote,” said Yeaworth.
Yeaworth denied that the council “had it in” for nightclubs. “We don’t want to put the nightclubs out of business, but we want to give them a penalty stiff enough that it will hurt.”
“I don’t think having the ordinance would hurt the nightlife at all,” Yeaworth said. “If you look at the crime statistics, every year there is only one or two clubs that inappropriate violent situations will occur. 99 percent of the clubs will never have a problem with the license at all.
“Recently Seattle has been working as a community to encourage more people to live in urban centers. But then people are living closer to the business, which is what we want, but then people trying to sleep are being woken up at two in the morning by drunk people.”
Reaction from clubs was subdued, as many declined requests for interviews following the shelving of the proposal, while other city employees gave a mixed reaction.
“It’s a little heavy handed by the city, to close businesses that might not be that bad,” said Mark Bisson, a Seattle Police Officer.
“We’ve had a ton of runs thanks to some of these clubs,” said Seattle paramedic John Hinson. “They do need to be a little stricter with the ones that just turn out the drunks into the middle of the night, but then again the city’s got to be responsible with these laws and not make them so harsh.
In July, Nickels had issued a list of eight “problem clubs” in the Belltown and Pioneer Square areas of Seattle, each with “over 20 police incidents from January 2006 to April 2007,” none of which returned repeated calls.
The council amended the measure with a vote of 5-4 to delay implementation for at least one year. After that period, the council would then vote once again on the proposal to make it official. The amended proposal then passed 6-3, according to the council’s website.
The ordinance was first introduced over a year ago by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, and called for a license for all nightclubs in Seattle city limits in addition to their business license.
That license would be required for their continued operation, and could be revoked by excessive noise, violence, and litter, according to David Yeaworth, staff member for councilwoman Sally Clark, one of the main supporters of the ordinance on the council.
“It is a victory,” said Tim Hatley, public affairs spokesman for the Seattle Nightclub and Musicians Association. “It was great that they went ahead and [delayed the ordinance]. We are eager to work with the city for solutions.”
When asked about the state of the current laws, Hatley replied, “I think that the rules in place are fine, but are there some examples where bars aren’t doing their jobs, sure.”
“People don’t go out until 11 or 12 anymore,” Hatley said. “This is a different generation.”
Supporters of the ordinance, however, were not as happy to see the proposal shelved.
“It was disappointing that it wasn’t culminated in a successful vote,” said Yeaworth.
Yeaworth denied that the council “had it in” for nightclubs. “We don’t want to put the nightclubs out of business, but we want to give them a penalty stiff enough that it will hurt.”
“I don’t think having the ordinance would hurt the nightlife at all,” Yeaworth said. “If you look at the crime statistics, every year there is only one or two clubs that inappropriate violent situations will occur. 99 percent of the clubs will never have a problem with the license at all.
“Recently Seattle has been working as a community to encourage more people to live in urban centers. But then people are living closer to the business, which is what we want, but then people trying to sleep are being woken up at two in the morning by drunk people.”
Reaction from clubs was subdued, as many declined requests for interviews following the shelving of the proposal, while other city employees gave a mixed reaction.
“It’s a little heavy handed by the city, to close businesses that might not be that bad,” said Mark Bisson, a Seattle Police Officer.
“We’ve had a ton of runs thanks to some of these clubs,” said Seattle paramedic John Hinson. “They do need to be a little stricter with the ones that just turn out the drunks into the middle of the night, but then again the city’s got to be responsible with these laws and not make them so harsh.
In July, Nickels had issued a list of eight “problem clubs” in the Belltown and Pioneer Square areas of Seattle, each with “over 20 police incidents from January 2006 to April 2007,” none of which returned repeated calls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)