Comments
Posted by Doug on September 2 at 8:37 a.m.
You're obviously an Obama supporter, but let's try to keep it objective ok? Looking forward to more OBJECTIVE reporting from the convention.
Posted by Doug on September 2 at 8:38 a.m.
Actually, how about sending a McCain supporter kinda like you sent an obvious Obama supporter to the DNC, Indy?
Posted by Matt on September 2 at 10:16 a.m.
FYI, The Indy is expecting on-the-ground RNC reporting from David Lack, and he just filed his first report.
As for sending a reporter there, with time/money constraints and a relatively small news reporting staff, we could only afford to send someone to one convention. Because our reporter Chris Meagher had contacts working in the DNC and a friend he could stay with in Denver, we decided our money would be best spent in coverage of that convention.
Plus, from an editorial standpoint, the DNC's drama and characters were clearly more interesting than the RNC's event, as evidenced by the 30+ million who tuned in to watch Obama's acceptance speech.
--Matt Kettmann, senior editor, The Independent
Posted by Doug on September 2 at 5:25 p.m.
ok thanks - that assures me that you're objective - saying
"the DNC's drama and characters were clearly more interesting than the RNC's event, as evidenced by the 30+ million who tuned in to watch Obama's acceptance speech"
before McCain's acceptance speech has even happened! Maybe you're right, but do you have to be so obviously prejudiced? At least be more subtle. You've already judged it more interesting before it even happened! How open minded. I also notice the Indy has not even a mention on the GOP VP selection, though it has dominated the rest of the news since the DNC. That's just so objective and complete Matt.
Looking forward to Lack's reporting however, and appreciate your hosting it.
Posted by binky on September 2 at 10:28 p.m.
Dear Doug:
I notice the Independent is calling this section a "blog" which is commonly heavily laced with opinion.
Perhaps that will help you interpret the commentary with a dash of salt.
I believe modern journalism is riven with false objectivity; I usually gain more info knowing from where the folks hail.
Posted by Matt on September 3 at 10:47 a.m.
Hi Doug,
As Binky explains, blogs aren't really meant to be objective. We're doing all we can within reasons to cover both events, so I hope that's appreciated. We could have simply ignored the RNC altogether, and most of our readers would have been fine with that. How many other weekly newspapers are covering the RNC? Not many.
As for being "obviously prejudiced," I figured that would be your reaction to anything I said, which is why I noted how many other Americans tuned in. Estimated Nielsen ratings for the RNC, which we get sent daily, are meager in comparison already.
And as you may know, The Independent, when we take an editorial stance, leans to the left a little bit, much like our readership, so our deeper coverage of the DNC should not come as any surprise. That's no big secret. And that's one reasons why we've kept our convention coverage in our opinionated blog zone, for the most part.
Happy reading,
matt
Posted by Doug on September 3 at 9:02 p.m.
You're right it comes as no surprise that you are left. I am happy that you admit it. Just so we both agree. No, I would not say you are obviously prejudiced, unless it was obvious - as it is when you judge other's interest level based on "estimated" Neilsen ratings for one convention with actual ones for another.
Are you going to revise that after Palin's actual speech? You wouldn't consider her "clearly interesting" even if you don't agree with her politics?
I might expect biased commentary from blog participants but not from the editor of a paper.
I am curious, though, why do you make assumptions about the political leanings of who reads your free paper? Do you have actual evidence of who your readers are and what they believe? Nobody ever asked me. There are no subscriptions, the blog comments go both ways - Everyone I know picks it up because it's free, and want to read something while they eat lunch - many of us just to be amazed and shocked by just how left and non-objective a paper can be, but most just to find out what's happening around town. The editorials are just offensive in my opinion and difficult to find amongst all the ads anyway. It's more like a phone book now. Just my feedback. Thanks for printing my comments anyway, your response, and thanks for the coverage as left as it is!
Posted by Doug on September 3 at 9:05 p.m.
Actually, I really don't see where it says "blog" all I see is "The Indy's Daily RNC Coverage" but what's the point of splitting hairs. It is what it is and you admit it is biased coverage - glad we are on the same page.
Posted by Doug on September 3 at 9:11 p.m.
ok Lack is doing much better and I see where it says "blog" thank you!
Posted by Doug on September 3 at 9:27 p.m.
Ugh I take it back - you still have Roberts with his useless snide commentary from afar as armchair quarterback...
Posted by Doug on September 3 at 9:28 p.m.
How do you call it "coverage" when he isn't even there?
Posted by Randy Campbell on September 3 at 11:41 p.m.
I just hate to let idle speculation sit, so in the interest of keeping you better informed, Doug, I can answer some of your questions:
1. We've been doing reader surveys, both "blow-in" reader response cards, phone, and 3rd party audits, every 3 or 4 years for the past 20 plus.
2. Editorials are hard to find because we only do a handful every year, and just started doing them this century. But I must say I'm glad you find them that memorable -- do you remember the Schwarzenegger endorsement? Totally left-leaning!
3. I don't see how Jerry Roberts's reporting on the RNC or DNC is not coverage. By watching and listening to various news feeds, online reports, journals, and broadcasts isn't it possible to provide coverage? If not, all the stars at Fox News (and other cable outlets) will be unemployed.
Hope that helps, Doug. And thanks for reading and participating.
-- Randy Campbell, Publisher
Santa Barbara Independent
Posted by Doug on September 4 at 6:46 p.m.
Yes it does thank you.
Posted by Doug on September 4 at 9:41 p.m.
"Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention drew 37 million viewers, which is more than those who watched Democratic vice president Joe Biden or potential first lady Michelle Obama or even Hillary Clinton during the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
According to Nielsen ratings, Palin’s number was just 1.1 million viewers shy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech at the Democratic meeting Aug. 28, according to the most recent Nielsen Media Research ratings." **
This was for the VICE president - clearly the RNC is almost as interesting as the DNC.
Of course this comes from FOXnews so I'm sure that will discredit the figures in your mind so please tell us what your research says Matt and correct it. While you're there it would be interesting to know how interesting McCain was based on viewership.
Be afraid, be very afraid, and be embarassed.
Posted by Matt on September 5 at 9:08 a.m.
Hi Doug,
Yes, I saw those figures for Palin yesterday, and almost posted them myself because I was so shocked. And it also seems like the McCain speech got plenty of viewers as well, at least in preliminary figures.
However, while I may be afraid of what our country could choose in November (something different and hopeful, or the same make-rich-people-richer/screw-the-rest policies that have pushed our country into the ground and made us the laughing stock of the world), I am not embarrassed for what I said.
For readers in Santa Barbara, where the registered voters always lean Democrat and Obama was chosen over Hilary, the DNC was much more interesting, save perhaps for the wild card Palin, whose popularity seemed to be more connected to her controversial background and mystery.
In my opinion, McCain's speech last night was ridiculous. It didn't include any specific policy talk compared to Obama's, it was the same old political blah blah blah, and promised things that we know he will not follow through on. If he's so different, why did he vote with Bush 90 percent or more of the time? A war hero, yes, but not our next president, please gods. And what if old age gets to him in office? Palin as president? Now that's something to be afraid of.
Anyway, this has been fun, but I actually have work to do rather than get caught up in this you-as-anonymous, me-as-not blog battle. I usually refrain from these sorts of things, because anonymous detractors (and often the right-leaning ones) usually get somewhat mean, as you have, and always seem to come from some spiteful place, as you seem to be. You can keep grinding your ax, but I need to stop paying attention.
Choose hope, I say, and choose Obama. What bad can be said about him? Don't just settle for four more years of a bad economy, more war, and a world laughing out loud at America.
Take care,
matt
Posted by Doug on September 5 at 1:39 p.m.
I could go point by point with you but I prefer you just print the text of the McCain speech like you did for Obama so we can make our own political blah blah blah comparison and our own judgements, instead of Jerry Roberts "spin" on it. Becasue all I heard during Obama's speech was the same political .. hope.. blah blah ..change... McCain...blah blah That would do us all a better service, because we all seem to hear what we want to hear and close our ears when it is different than that..
Why did you "almost" post the figures and not just go ahead just post them?
Previous Month
