Tag Archives: Journal Sentinel

“Modest,” my eye — that’s a 50% price increase!

Posted on by
9

The Journal Sentinel yesterday raised the retail price of its daily newspaper by 25 cents, labeling it “modest” increase.

It’s also a not-so-modest 50% jump, which the paper forgot to mention in this instance, but would have been sure to point out had it been imposed by some other business or — golly! — by local government as a property tax increase.

I really, really want the paper to stay in business and stay locally owned, as weak as it is at times. If you don’t like the JS, you would probably like not having it even less. The paper, though, now is charging proportionately a lot more for a lot less content and letting its readers know this in a note that just reeks of “you are idiots anyway” attitude.

JS — Please. Stop it.

TV woes and reading

Posted on by
6

Perhaps it’s a sign — heavy television viewing, at least of the free kind, is cursed.

First, take the JS’ unfortunate decision to deliver the Sunday TV Cue only to those who specifically request it. This seemed like a doomed enterprise from the start, seeing as it is coming from a company that regularly screws up simple vacation holds and can’t get subscriptions right if they contain slight deviations from the norm (or, too often, even if they do not).

TV Cue delivery is most important, most likely, to those who do not have cable or satellite TV and their attendant electronic channel guides. Unfortunately, poor planning struck at the heart of the JS plan even before the requested Cue plan had a chance. The JS, asking people to call if they wanted to continue getting something at no additional charge, just didn’t plan on so many people wanting to continue to get something at no additional charge. On Monday, we were treated to this:

To our newspaper readers

We regret any difficulties you may have had reaching the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Circulation Customer Service representatives since Sunday. Because of a record high volume of calls, we’ve been unable to speak personally with each caller about his or her delivery concerns. We’ve also been confirming delivery of the Sunday TV Cue section for our subscribers who opted in to continue receiving it. Please bear with us; we will contact each caller and resolve your issues as promptly as possible. Thanks for your understanding.

Sincerely,
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Circulation Team

That is one free TV  woe. The second comes from the federal government and involves the digital converter box coupons that for which we all are supposed to qualify (that switchover date of Feb. 17 is getting ever closer). Harrrrumph! Yeah, right. The coupons are good for 90 days. Ours expired before the we got them. In fact, I’m still waiting. Many, many other people found that they could not buy a converter box before their coupons expired because stores were slow to stock them.

So, Cueless and boxless, what’s a person to do? Reading is great, but on occasion a person needs the typical TV conscious coma fare of the totally mindless and totally stupid. How to find it and how to get it is not something we should have to think about — kind of ruins the effect of the content.

That sneak peak column shouldn’t have happened

Posted on by
Reply

Patrick McIlheran’s pre-publication sharing of a column with a generally right wing bunch of bloggers was a mistake that shouldn’t have happened and shouldn’t happen again, according to Journal Sentinel managing editor George Stanley (previous posts here and here).  

Thank you, George.

I don’t think McIlheran is particularly ethically challenged, journalistically speaking, although his political views are wacko, but his sharing of the contents of a column in advance of it being posted or published just screamed of potential pitfalls that any credible newspaper should avoid.

Do I think McIlheran should have been more aware of that potential and not done what he did?

Yup.

Should he have his butt kicked up between his ears if he ever does something like this again?

Yup.

Should we all read each McIlheran musing the JS publishes?

No. Fricking. Way.

Not good enough

Posted on by
4

The JS letters editor and first vice president of the local Newspaper Guild, Sonya Jongsma Knauss, tells readers of Blogging Blue that the JS’ ethic policy does not apply to columnists.

“First, the ethics agreement refers to articles, not columns,” she writes.

So it’s OK for Patrick McIlheran to disclose the contents of his column well in advance of publication to his conservative buddies, plus Jay Bullock?

So then columnist Dan Bice can ship his stuff around town ahead of publication? Columnist Jim Stingl can do that? Columnist Tim Cuprisin? Really? That’s news to me. If I, a subscriber, request that McIlheran and the rest of JS columnists provide to me their columns in advance of publication, can I do that in the name of equal treatment? Or are they allowed to pick and choose who gets an advance look? Is Paddy Mac giving non-subscribers preferential treatment (or punishment, depending on how you view his writings) over people who plunk down cash for their papers?

And is a column really not an article? Generally, but not always, a column is not a story — but to argue that a column is not an article doesn’t match the definitions of “article” that popped when I Googled. And are average readers are supposed to be able to slice that finely the semantic pie Sonya has laid before them?

Sonya suggests that Paddy Mac may have sent his column out after the 7 p.m. day-before posting at JS online, but he actually sent it out several hours before that.

Sonya also writes that the Newspaper Guild doesn’t officially recognize the ethics policy, something else the average reader would have no clue about. By the way, is the right wing Paddy Mac a Guild member?

The explanations are not good enough. If the JS exempts certain staffers from its ethics policy, it needs to clearly say so so readers can understand — with no hidden caveats — what they are getting.

“It is a permitted practice for Journal Sentinel editorial board members and columnists to disclose the contents of their work in advance of publication to a select few most likely to support their points of view.”

Something like that. But is that really something the JS wants to live with?

McIlheran and journalistic ethics: what the hey?

Posted on by
6

Maybe journalistic ethics are changing in these days of columnist / blogger combos and maybe it’s OK that Patrick McIlheran sends out advance copies of his column to a select handful of bloggers.

Maybe. But it makes me queasy. A few people — mostly of the conservative persuasion (except for that folkbum guy) — get to read the columns in advance and, perhaps, start drafting supporting blog posts or letters even before the column is published in the paper. All seems kind of like a fixed fight, doesn’t it?

And if it is OK for McIlheran to show his columns to the select few in advance, is it OK for him to share editorials before they are published? How about news stories?

The changing ways columnists and bloggers communicate may mean that maybe hard and fast journalistic rules — like you don’t spread newpaper content around in advance of publication — are changing. To allow columnists to sneak-peak their writings to a handful of friends seems a slippery slope the JS ought not want to start down. It damages the paper’s credibility and chips away at the trust it must have from its readers. We are left wondering: Who else at the JS is showing what else to a politically friendly audience?