Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Stanford vs. WWeek

I wonder if it was too late for the Willamette Week to respond to Tuesday's shot across the bow by Phil Stanford.

If you didn't catch it, he questioned WW's readership numbers vs. the Trib (one paper a week versus two?) and then he talked about numbers of pages - it's always about size isn't it?

What do you think that's about? Is Phil now the official apologist for the Trib?

91 Comments:

Blogger MAX Redline said...

Wasn't Stanford simply replying to a comment published in WW regarding the Trib?

My view: if you want local sex ads, pick up WW. If you want PDX news, get a copy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just amazed that there appeared to be actual reporting in Phil's column. Usually, he's on the dying-bartender, -cabbie, -concierge, -etc. beat.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:11:00 AM  
Blogger Betsy said...

I said this on a comment on b!X's Trib post as well (hey, it's rerun season, isn't it?) - so much for Steve Clark's recent vow:

"Unlike other papers, we will never engage in personal attacks that are offered simply because we compete in the same marketplace and for many of the same readers."

Stanford (and his editor, perhaps?) must have missed the memo...

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:29:00 AM  
Blogger The One True b!X said...

Stanford (and his editor, perhaps?) must have missed the memo...

Maybe that's the new policy in their newly-gutted form: Every man for himself.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newspapers almost always present their audit data in terms of how many readers read it per issue, not in terms of how many read it over a given time period (i.e. "readers per week," "readers per month.") Given the Trib's accounting mode, wouldn't the Oregonian, with a half-million readers statewide each day, be able to say they have 15 million readers each month?

Presented the way nearly every other newspaper does it, (by declaring the number of readers divided by the number of issues per month), the Trib's numbers suggest it has 52,116 readers per issue. WW's numbers come out to 97,302 per issue.

On another point in the column, regarding pages, even if WW has 100 pages per issue, that's still twice as many as the Trib publishes each week (16 on Tuesday, 34 on Friday), in terms of non-insert pages.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil has been fired too many times not to kiss the ass of his boss this time.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger The One True b!X said...

But as Betsy points out, didn't Phil's boss just say they wouldn't do this sort of thing?

(Ok, ok, so maybe it came with a wink wink nudge nudge say no more.)

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just so everyone that looks at this understands what is or is not the numbers.
Monthy Readers
Big O - 851,700 (weekday) 961,400 (Sunday)
Portland Trib - 448,200
WW - 418,400

It’s a service that cost a tremendous amount of money and is not determined by “readers per issue”. It’s a very precise question that says - Do you read X, Y or Z and how often.

What does it all mean?

It means that no matter how you look at the numbers, they will always be skewed into the way who or in the way it wants to be viewed. When it comes to page count, yeah the WW and the Big O will always dominate this part of the equation - just grabbed the Best of PDX WWeek (their biggest of the year?) and its only 131 pages/6 of porn.

But for me, I’ll read what is interesting and each Portlander will determine that for themselves. I have not seen any sports or "non-whiner" coverage in the WW in years and I just want to know what going on in my back yard....guess I'll grab the Metro section and a Trib.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

clearly there are issues with WW

once again, all you insecure media clowns can do is make the messenger the issue rather than the message

thats what happens when the wheels start falling off and you grasp for whatever source of ad revenue you can, just as WW has done with the hooker/prostitute display ads

WW itself lacks content and credibility and is a complete joke!

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if your business wants scraggly leftwing whackjobs quoting chairman mao, then advertise in WW

If your a whore looking to beef up your client list, then advertise in WW

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Cliff Pfenning said...

Wow, it's impressive how "anonymous" stands up for the Trib. Apparently, part of the Pamplin biz plan is to get staffers to prattle on about how the paper is so whatever.

Who gives a rip about Phil Stanford or the Tribune? The paper is just a bunch of fluffy features and has no real impact on the city.

And, big deal about readership. What about PROFIT? If you can get a billion people to read your publication, but you lose a billion dollars in the process because you're a bumbling fool, what's the point? There's another question the Trib can put on its cover.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:03:00 PM  
Blogger The One True b!X said...

WW itself lacks content and credibility and is a complete joke!

Because lack of content and lack of credibility is how one wins a Pulitzer Prize.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:11:00 PM  
Blogger PDX Graphics Guy said...

If there's one thing I've learned about numbers, they can be skewed any way to benefit whoever quotes them. I'm amazed that the newspaper medium is still relevant in this world of electronic text. I still read books by the ton but newspapers have become a source primarily for entertainment with the occasional news buried under the Meier and Frank ads.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:13:00 PM  
Blogger lisaloving said...

'My view: if you want local sex ads, pick up WW. If you want PDX news, get a copy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer."


Don't count on it. This week's Seattle Weekly has an eye opener about horse trading going on in the Seattle newspaper biz, and the P-I looks to be a sacrificial lamb of the Seattle Times, like The Oregon Journal was for The O, back in the day.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0532/050810_news_newspapers.php

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stanford is just sour graping that WW got the pulitzer nom for the Goldschmidt thing. Stanford and the Trib invested alot of efforts writing the "Watcher's" series expecting pulitzer recognition that never came.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"scraggly leftwing whackjobs quoting chairman mao"

now here's a good example of larsspeak.... i haven't heard anyone quote chairman mao since 1970. has anyone else?
and scraggly is high fashion in portland, anyway, from greybeards to wool hat boys.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pfenning?

No credibility here. Lazy ass fired from The Skanner and The Tribune because he was all talk and no skills?

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:28:00 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

At least Mr. Pfenning had the guts to post his name, unlike your faceless attack...

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monthy Readers
Big O - 851,700 (weekday) 961,400 (Sunday)
Portland Trib - 448,200
WW - 418,400


Um, The O has 646,700 readers daily. 781,000 on Sundays. This ads up to well over 18 million readers a month.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stanford is freaky weird. And the Trib is light as air. Seriously, Phil and the incredible shrinking paper he writes for are non-factors.

By the way, a very credible meth addict I paid $50 to interview told me that Phil was seen running from the Dome Building on that fateful night. It's a fact.

Baby, get me rewrite and another Singapore Sling ....

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one has mentioned what I think is a relevant fact: that Russ Martineau, who used to be a co-owner at WW and was their big business guy during the late 1990s when WW was at its biggest (as was everyone), is now at the Tribune. And there's definitely some bad blood felt by Martineau (perhaps somewhat justifiably so). Oh, and also, before coming to the Trib, Stanford tried to get WW to let him be a columnist for them, and was turned down.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice this week's WW cover?
"The Best Place to Pick up Chicks."

The oh-so-clever cover photo?
A pretty woman holding a rooster.
Not a hen.
Not a chick.
An adult rooster.

Something got lost in the translation to the photographer.

Hey... and as someone above mentioned of all the porn /escort ads they rely on... did you notice WW's also taking money from big tobacco? The often-morally-righteous WW had a separate insert a few weeks ago offering FREE CIGARETTES to anyone with that coupon.
Yea, WW. You're really upholding admirable values with that.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stanford's basic problem is that he's a lazy f***. Remember, this is the guy who had the goods on Goldschmidt and he turns it over to a state senator. What a schmuck.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS

From Willamette Week 11/24/04:

"Stanford was the first reporter to obtain a Washington County court record that, while not mentioning Neil Goldschmidt, eventually led to disclosure of the ex-governor's long-held secret of statutory rape. At a standstill, he passed it to state Sen. Vicki Walker, who subsequently gave it to WW."

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:33p: I'm pretty sure you're looking at a list of monthly readers, not monthly readings -- what those in broadcast call cume. If one person reads the paper twice, it's still one reader.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I think PDX Media Watcher should be congratulated for a blog that's only existed since May, and named "Honorable Mention" by WW Readers for "Best Local Blog."

Speaking of the Tribune, I wonder when the paper will shrink from 2 print sections to 1 on Tuesday (since Sports is on the back of Life), and the 3 or 4 on Fridays down to about 2 (or 1, if you're a pessimist). Or, if they will go to once a week publication before this will happen (if not, it'd probably be after). And finally, will the last edition of the paper be stamped "Final Edition," or will we read in the Oregonian and Willamette Week that the Tribune shut its doors?

How long does anyone think this entire sceneario might play out, in part or in full?

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, regarding the cover, it does show a rooster. It also shows a chick. In fact, it shows a female picking up a male. I think WW knew what it was doing.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:42: Right, but then the Trib's number wouldn't be 448,000, but an eighth of that. My point was that the post at 11:50 mixes what look like Oregonian daily numbers with Trib and WW monthly cumulatives.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

she's holding a cock

Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The snarking back and forth between WW and the Trib has nothing to do with substance really. They are business competitors. Part of winning, they think and they might be right, involves tearing down the other paper's brand, its image. So they take potshots at each other and of course the Merc does too. It's interesting that they take shots mostly at the other paper's business success (and lack thereof), not their actual products. Both papers have their defenders on this board, but it would be more instructive if they compared content instead of money. What is essential in this week's WW v. what's essential in this week's Trib? Ready, set, analyze.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The snarking back and forth between WW and the Trib has nothing to do with substance really. They are business competitors. Part of winning, they think and they might be right, involves tearing down the other paper's brand, its image. So they take potshots at each other and of course the Merc does too. It's interesting that they take shots mostly at the other paper's business success (and lack thereof), not their actual products. Both papers have their defenders on this board, but it would be more instructive if they compared content instead of money. What is essential in this week's WW v. what's essential in this week's Trib? Ready, set, analyze.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I ran in to phil the other night at CC Slaugters, he was a little loaded, and let spell that he basiclly pays his kid $25 bucks a week to write all his shit, and that he has'nt even read the paper in about 6 months. So if you wanna blame anybody, blame the kid.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's up with the O? The wire stories proliferate, especially in the arts and living sections. Don't they know everyone reads the NYTimes already?

As for the Trib, I can't believe they let Pete Schulberg go. He's one of the best journalists in town. Close to his sources, he constantly broke stories. Too bad his beat didn't have more impact.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>and scraggly is high fashion in portland, anyway, from greybeards to wool hat boys

and what business wants that kind of scum walking in their business?

Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one wants to see what a newspaper actually looks like, then read the Columbian. It has MUCH more content than the lazy fucks at the Oregonian have.

The Oregonian thinks 90% of a daily newspaper should be assembled weeks in advance consisting of living section and other fluff crap pieces, while current news gets at best two paragraphs buried in the metro section. Or some edited version of a wire report. I know this for a fact as i have worked in composition at the oregonian so don't reply with some accusation i don't know what i'm talking about.. The oregonian clearly views current news as an interference with the pages containing fluff nonsense.
If you think the oregonian is a good newspaper you clearly don't know anything and your opinion is meaningless.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>now here's a good example of larsspeak.... i haven't heard anyone quote chairman mao since 1970. has anyone else?
and scraggly is high fashion in portland, anyway, from greybeards to wool hat boys.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>now here's a good example of larsspeak.... i haven't heard anyone quote chairman mao since 1970. has anyone else?
and scraggly is high fashion in portland, anyway, from greybeards to wool hat boys.

this is not "larsspeak", its my speak. i control the 50k monthly ad budget for our very sucessful company (direct, no agency) and advertising to the portland market is like flushing money down the toilet. I speak from experience, you blabbering idiots speak from what? a perception you have that justifies people advertising in your mediums? when you walk the walk (as we do), then you can talk the talk. until then, please shut up as you do not know what you are talking about. you THINK you know, but you don't. There is the clatter bouncing back and forth in your cranium, and then there is REALITY!

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I run a VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANY! Did you hear me? A VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANY! Do I need to reiterate that my company is VERY SUCCESSFUL? I CONTROL THE BUDGET!

More successful than American Apparel, Widmer or Washington Mutual, all of which have ads in the most recent issue of WW? Maybe they're all courting the Maoist market, and they know something this guy doesn't...but that can't be! HIS COMPANY IS VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you believe it’s even legal to print some of the stuff the WW does? I mean, it’s a free paper, any kid could pick it up, and it’s packed with blatant pornography. Just because you cover the anus with a black star does not make it unpornographic.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God, you people are real fans of WW's back pages, eh?

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, the opposite, duh?
I find them depressing and wrong.

and leftwing nutjobs don't read WW. no one does.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Sizzler said...

This is starting to remind me of the Parent's Television Council who, in their quest to protect their children from adult content, provide video feeds of that adult content on their website.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and leftwing nutjobs don't read WW. no one does.

Well, thank Jesus! We're all safe from that pornography then...weird that they keep printing so many papers, though.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, I mean people look thru it for movie times and shows, but the articles? come on...

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:50:00 PM  
Anonymous sizzler said...

Yes...anonymous up there reads the WW for the articles.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

heehee..lol @ him 4 that.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"i control the 50k monthly ad budget for our very sucessful company"

Did this remind anyone else of the SNL skit where Will Ferrell screams ?

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I drive a Dodge Stratus!"

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol @ 50k guy.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More cow bell.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This one time me and 50k guy where at Silverado, and he was like, "Check out my Ad Budget" and I was like, "gwirl, uh huh".

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

laugh all you want fools, the bottom line is that your Portland market, whether its the o ww, tv, radio, whatever,offers us NOTHING in the way of potential customers.

Your mediums are as worthless as the audience you deliver. Been there, done that.

This is why you see ZERO dollars of the fifty thousand dollars we spend monthly.

That is the issue.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What media outlets do you use instead?

Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate American Apparel Ad's. And there product is shite. American labor is shite.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dude, that is so off-topic

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, that ad campaign is very wack.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe you guys and gals outta get back to work and stop debating the pros and cons of WW porn!

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

its a slow day....

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol. @ 50k guy. he just a troll. lol.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Because lack of content and lack of credibility is how one wins a Pulitzer Prize.

even the worst poker player in the world will eventually make a royal flush

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you wanna talk about garbage, you ever read that mercury paper? I think it was funny for like, 10 issues, and has been sucking to no end ever since. They need to hire a consultent or somthing. But yes, the WW still sucks more. Except for that new Finder thing they just did.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>all will scramble for the remaining breadcrumbs.

boy, thats for sure. "begging" describes it better than "scramble"

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think its time for a NEW paper in town. Not a snarky nor ironic one, just a good one. The attempts at cleverness by both the WW and Mercury are fatiguing. Can we please have just a normal paper, with good articles and no pornography?

that would be very refreshing..

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:48:00 PM  
Blogger PDXMediaWatcher said...

Sal:
We're getting tired of your rants. And clean up the language.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sal, please please just STFU, ok?

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love Jesus.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:09:00 PM  
Blogger PDXMediaWatcher said...

I get it Sal, trying to "bait" me.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Oregonian thinks 90% of a daily newspaper should be assembled weeks in advance consisting of living section and other fluff crap pieces, while current news gets at best two paragraphs buried in the metro section. Or some edited version of a wire report. I know this for a fact as i have worked in composition at the oregonian so don't reply with some accusation i don't know what i'm talking about.

You don't know what you're talking about, composition guy. (The O hasn't been pasted up in years, by the way). Except for Sunday and other weekly features sections (A&E, Sunday Living, TV Click, Travel, etc.) and a couple of daily Livings, everything's put together the day before. Even most of the advance sections are on the press only about 48 hours before publication date. Nothing is assembled "weeks in advance" except the occasional special section like Diner.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:50:00 PM  
Blogger pdx_photoman said...

Anonymous said: "I think its time for a NEW paper in town. Not a snarky nor ironic one, just a good one...just a normal paper, with good articles and no pornography..."

It's too bad our economic base wouldn't support a thoughtful monthly magazine like TEXAS MONTHLY. Part of their success was the business acumen of Mike Levy. But it takes a certain kind of geographic cohesiveness and the potential for a big subscriber base, of which Oregon only has the former. Bob Nylen
and Dan Okrent tried to replicate Levy's success with NEW ENGLAND MONTHLY in the eighties, but couldn't make it work, and I don't think it would work here. But smart, a bit sassy, with first-rate journalism--it would be a pleasure.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DXMediaWatcher said...

I get it Sal, trying to "bait" me.



I am not Sal. This is my first day checking out your blog and am quite taken back by the amount of censorship you administer. It seems a little heavy-handed. What's the point of a blog if only opinions and language you deem suitable make it through the filter.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 5:27:
It's PDX Media Watcher's blog/site. He/she can moderate this however they want. If you don't like it, instead of complaining, use that time to start your own blog and/or website.
Before replying that you don't have the time and/or energy and/or resources to start your own blog and/or website, then maybe you can appreciate this site much more, on the grounds that someone who does have the time/energy/resources, used those three things to allow you to read up on some of the issues that aren't being discussed elsewhere (even pdxradio).

Your decision.

Thursday, August 11, 2005 6:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What media outlets do you use instead?"

We hand out tracts down in the bus mall, and, uh, hire a skywriter now and then...

;)

Friday, August 12, 2005 8:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response. I didn't argue that he/she is not entitled to edit/censor their blog how they please. I just personally find it gross. My comments were not inflammatory or terribly offensive and I didn't think it worthy of a deletion. I really have no interest in starting a blog and so far am not a big fan of this one. I may be wrong but it comes across like a bunch of conservative yuppies are using this to gripe about WW's escort ads. It's bland and offers no new insight, kind if like WW.

Friday, August 12, 2005 9:25:00 AM  
Blogger The One True b!X said...

Apparently, judging by this thread, the only people who even look at the back of WW for all the sex are the people who claim it's offensive and wrong.

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well,its right by the GD movie times. And its free, any kid can grab it. Pornography is for 18 and up. thats the MF'n law.

Friday, August 12, 2005 2:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no explicit nudity shown. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any lawyer that would argue that that qualifies as pornography.

Friday, August 12, 2005 2:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone read the Business Journal's story about the Trib's watercooler woes? Pretty funny.

Friday, August 12, 2005 2:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I know about the Oregonian is that Springsteen was in town Wed night and there was NO REVIEW the next day...

That's pathetic... it's Springsteen... a legend... not Jack Johnson or someone like that.

I'm not in the newspaper business but you have to find a way to get this in the next day's paper.

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody like Phil Stanford? Other than Phil Stanford, I mean.

Saturday, August 13, 2005 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Ben Waiting said...

yes I really enjoy and like reading Phil Stanford’s columns…always have!
matter o fact he is the main reason I read the trib.
Exact facts on WW vrs Trib ? Heck hardly provable with Diabold running everyhing (Ha * that was a joke)
I love Phil's style and his variety of subjects from funny to sinisterly real. Always delivered with his canny way of telling a story and keeping you interested, where you were wanting to read the next issue,or you wanted to know more or what happens next.
I like his attitude and the way he wrote was exciting and noble as he poked at ideas and unjustices. Being it old stories from cabbies or inside tales from Meth cooks, to an overheard comment at a sidewalk cafe of 'big dollar tippers', to files dug from old archives in a state office in Salem.
It seems like reporting / journalism isn’t so much in the beholder
But more defined in the words of the writer ....
I can say that I’m more curious to what Phil will be writing about this week than anyone (including myself) posting back on this thread here, based on content or subject worthiness
Ha - should Phil write like you want, or about what you want him to? Or how he wants?
And should we tell him 'what' to write about or can he write about what he always does….?
he writes about what .....‘he wants to’?
And don’t ask if I would buy ‘his book’ I bet you can guess.
~Take Care~

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "I think its time for a NEW paper in town. Not a snarky nor ironic one, just a good one...just a normal paper, with good articles and no pornography..."

Um, I think that's what the Trib is trying to do.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very cool blog you got! I just added you to my bookmarks!

I have a great article resource you might want to check out.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey nice info you posted.
I just browsing through some blogs and came across yours!

Excellent blog, good to see someone actually uses em for quality posts.

Your site kept me on for a few minutes unlike the rest :)

Keep up the good work!

Thanks!.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:24:00 AM  
Blogger The Blah Brain said...

LOL I found some good stuff here: click right here

Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:30:00 PM  
Blogger online2u said...

Free Online Mortage Quote!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:27:00 AM  
Blogger job opportunitya said...

Creative blog.  I thought it was the best site out
and we had to go back to it! Every chance I get on the
net I search for blogs just like your site.
Please proceed to my blog when you find the time.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:32:00 PM  
Blogger Make Money Home Based Business said...

Terrific blog. I search the internet everytime I
get a moment to find blogs. Its better than cold iced
tea and I have to visit it one more time!
I hope you can look through my home based business australia blog.

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.adquity.com

Classifieds for our community. Buy, sell, trade, date, events... post anything. Adquity Classifieds.

http://www.adquity.com

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

calendar event las vegas

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ads advertisement fashion magazine

Monday, March 05, 2007 6:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://ivlkrwnnz.com]tDtmlzWz[/url] - FskkJXHumZb , http://hhmgziigpu.com

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:42:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home