Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
No I.D., No Comment
Voice Growing Fainter?
Numbers have taken a free-fall to 20,000–25,000
The beginnings were auspicious enough — and Voice of San Diego garnered copious praise from various media-watchers who anointed it as a model for the news-diggers of the digital age. Bankrolled largely by Buzz Woolley — a local real estate and technology magnate — “the Voice” was launched in February 2005 as an online-only source for San Diego news. Seeking to position itself as the local portal for stories that “go unreported,” the Voice boasts that — as a privately funded, not-for-profit enterprise — it can provide tough, hard-hitting investigative reporting on local stories (e.g., political scandals) that other San Diego media might shy away from.
When reporter Will Carless uncovered the chicanery within the San Diego Southeastern Economic Development Corporation in 2008, the Voice’s fortunes appeared on the rise. Acting on a tip provided by (some have speculated) councilman Jim Madaffer, the Voice received plaudits aplenty when it trained the spotlight on SEDC president Carolyn Smith. Due in no small part to the reportage, the self-dealing Smith — whose lavish and illegal salary caused an uproar around town — was canned after 14 years at the unsteady helm.
Eventually, star muckraker Carless left to freelance in Indonesia. In the wake of his departure, some readers had begun to characterize the Voice’s news coverage as a bit “soft”; however, as recently as October of 2009, the site had reported a strong upsurge in visits. (According to online media-tracking service Quantcast, voiceofsandiego.org went from an average of 40,000 or so visits per month in late September to 100,000 by early to mid November.)
But recent weeks have seen a third major redesign of the website and, along with it, a precipitous drop in visitors; having peaked in mid November, the numbers have since taken a free-fall to 20,000–25,000 per month.
What gives? Voice editor Scott Lewis might have provided some clues on December 6 via a breezy, colloquial piece in which he laid out, for the Voice faithful, his explanation for recent changes to the site. Among other things, Lewis discussed the rationale — or lack thereof — behind the Voice’s policy of limiting comments by readers.
Until the latest makeover, which was completed December 2, the site had permitted readers to post comments (anonymously and otherwise) — but only on op-ed pieces, never on straight news stories. Lewis stated that all Voice articles were now to be fair game — but that anonymous posts would be verboten. The decision to implement the new ID-shackled give-and-take stems from a Sunday brunch that Lewis enjoyed with the brain trust of MinnPost.com, an operation with which he is enamored.
Impressed with the Minnesotans, who’ve never allowed their posters anonymity, the Voice brass has implemented a registration system: no ID — no comment. By aping the MinnPost “verification” strictures, Lewis hopes to avoid “forums [that] turn into something resembling more of a bathroom wall than a civil congress.”
Civil or not, however, attendance at the Voice congress seems to be dwindling these days. For his part, Lewis seemed unconcerned when I spoke with him in late December. Although he conceded that the website redesign has caused broken legacy links and other expected disruptions, he attributed much of the recent dip to seasonal fluctuations, explaining, “December is always a rough month.” Sounding an upbeat note, he expects a resurgence as 2010 commences. “We had a fantastic day yesterday and we already have 1700 fans on Facebook.”
Mystery Solved?
Weather Balloons and Street Flares
Channel 10 wants to reassure you that the UFO you saw early on New Year’s Day wasn’t extraterrestrial in origin but simply the brainchild of El Cajon trickster Todd Fassler. Channel 6 and Signonsandiego also propose an earthly cause for the light show, but offer instead a “Chinese sky lantern” theory behind the glowing holiday array.
Channel 10’s Hal Clement cheerfully kicked off their on-air coverage by crowing, “Mystery solved.” But on the 10news.com message board, things seemed a bit murkier. One commenter, comparing the attribution to the much-maligned Roswell, New Mexico, “weather balloon” theory, noted, “Strange how the news never had the guy explain how he got the flared powered balloons to stay in triangular formation.”
A doubting poster on Signonsandiego’s board cited the altitude, speed, and maneuverability of the objects as reasons to question the lantern theory.
In all fairness, Channel 10’s Allison Ash — “acting on a tip” — did interview Fassler, who “explained how he creates the hovering lights with weather balloons and street flares.” For its part, Channel 6, whose phones were “ringing off the hook” with sightings of “a triangle of red lights,” reported in its online account that the sky-watchers’ descriptions “sounded identical” to the objects that, in the station’s prior news stories, had “turned out to be Chinese sky lanterns.”
To its credit, Signonsandiego, was slightly more circumspect, stating that the best of photos sent to them by viewers “would appear to indicate” the lights came from the lanterns. Despite writing, somewhat cryptically, “Sometimes strange lights in the sky are just that,” reporter Andrew Kleske quoted a San Carlos woman who — after a bit of internet research on the popular, Chinese paper contraptions — was somewhat skeptical of the lantern explanation.
As for Todd Fassler — whose “confession” was readily accepted by Channel 10 — he told Allison Ash that in addition to being fun, his hobby “gives you guys a job.” [None of the above reporters were available for comment.]
Advocacy or Sloppy Reporting?
No One Favors Drunk Driving
The headline “Despite Deaths, DUI Arrests Skyrocket” implies cause-and-effect. Reporting on the 798 San Diego area drunk-driving arrests during the last two weeks of 2009, nbcsandiego.com noted that there were nearly twice as many of the hapless handcuffed as there had been during the same period in 2008.
But why would fatal auto accidents — commonplace in San Diego County regardless of the booze factor — decrease the number of local busts of motorists deemed under the sway of John Barleycorn? The coverage not only failed to make a case for the conclusion, it unwittingly offered a convincing and contradictory theory by quoting a spokesman for the local authorities who cited the yearly “crackdown” as the reason for the increase.
Reporter Steven Luke crossed the line from sloppy reporting to open editorializing when he wrote, “the message isn’t sinking in...some drivers continued to defy laws and logic by driving drunk.” When I asked Luke whether he intended to sermonize, he stated, “The journalist’s job is to serve the public. I try to be down the middle as much as I can, but when it comes to real drunk driving — where people are arrested — no one’s in favor of that.”
At least one message-board poster took this as a cue to agitate for an even more Draconian crackdown — permanent car confiscation for first offenders and the “firing squad” for recidivists.
By contrast, the local peacock affiliate took on a different tone when it reported a fatal car crash that occurred on Sunday, January 3, at a Carl’s Jr. restaurant in El Cajon. The online story by Michelle Wayland gave an account of a Carl’s Jr. customer — sitting in a booth with his back to a plate glass window — who was killed by a speeding car that smashed into the burger joint. According to the police, the victim was “hurled from one end of the restaurant to the other.” Despite quoting a witness who stated, “He didn’t hit the brakes. He didn’t swerve,” the reporter failed to mention anything that might have lent insight as to why the driver (assuming the crash wasn’t intentional) was grossly incompetent. Could this have been an “age-related” accident?
Here's something you might be interested in.
No I.D., No Comment
No I.D., No Comment
Voice Growing Fainter?
Numbers have taken a free-fall to 20,000–25,000
The beginnings were auspicious enough — and Voice of San Diego garnered copious praise from various media-watchers who anointed it as a model for the news-diggers of the digital age. Bankrolled largely by Buzz Woolley — a local real estate and technology magnate — “the Voice” was launched in February 2005 as an online-only source for San Diego news. Seeking to position itself as the local portal for stories that “go unreported,” the Voice boasts that — as a privately funded, not-for-profit enterprise — it can provide tough, hard-hitting investigative reporting on local stories (e.g., political scandals) that other San Diego media might shy away from.
When reporter Will Carless uncovered the chicanery within the San Diego Southeastern Economic Development Corporation in 2008, the Voice’s fortunes appeared on the rise. Acting on a tip provided by (some have speculated) councilman Jim Madaffer, the Voice received plaudits aplenty when it trained the spotlight on SEDC president Carolyn Smith. Due in no small part to the reportage, the self-dealing Smith — whose lavish and illegal salary caused an uproar around town — was canned after 14 years at the unsteady helm.
Eventually, star muckraker Carless left to freelance in Indonesia. In the wake of his departure, some readers had begun to characterize the Voice’s news coverage as a bit “soft”; however, as recently as October of 2009, the site had reported a strong upsurge in visits. (According to online media-tracking service Quantcast, voiceofsandiego.org went from an average of 40,000 or so visits per month in late September to 100,000 by early to mid November.)
But recent weeks have seen a third major redesign of the website and, along with it, a precipitous drop in visitors; having peaked in mid November, the numbers have since taken a free-fall to 20,000–25,000 per month.
What gives? Voice editor Scott Lewis might have provided some clues on December 6 via a breezy, colloquial piece in which he laid out, for the Voice faithful, his explanation for recent changes to the site. Among other things, Lewis discussed the rationale — or lack thereof — behind the Voice’s policy of limiting comments by readers.
Until the latest makeover, which was completed December 2, the site had permitted readers to post comments (anonymously and otherwise) — but only on op-ed pieces, never on straight news stories. Lewis stated that all Voice articles were now to be fair game — but that anonymous posts would be verboten. The decision to implement the new ID-shackled give-and-take stems from a Sunday brunch that Lewis enjoyed with the brain trust of MinnPost.com, an operation with which he is enamored.
Impressed with the Minnesotans, who’ve never allowed their posters anonymity, the Voice brass has implemented a registration system: no ID — no comment. By aping the MinnPost “verification” strictures, Lewis hopes to avoid “forums [that] turn into something resembling more of a bathroom wall than a civil congress.”
Civil or not, however, attendance at the Voice congress seems to be dwindling these days. For his part, Lewis seemed unconcerned when I spoke with him in late December. Although he conceded that the website redesign has caused broken legacy links and other expected disruptions, he attributed much of the recent dip to seasonal fluctuations, explaining, “December is always a rough month.” Sounding an upbeat note, he expects a resurgence as 2010 commences. “We had a fantastic day yesterday and we already have 1700 fans on Facebook.”
Mystery Solved?
Weather Balloons and Street Flares
Channel 10 wants to reassure you that the UFO you saw early on New Year’s Day wasn’t extraterrestrial in origin but simply the brainchild of El Cajon trickster Todd Fassler. Channel 6 and Signonsandiego also propose an earthly cause for the light show, but offer instead a “Chinese sky lantern” theory behind the glowing holiday array.
Channel 10’s Hal Clement cheerfully kicked off their on-air coverage by crowing, “Mystery solved.” But on the 10news.com message board, things seemed a bit murkier. One commenter, comparing the attribution to the much-maligned Roswell, New Mexico, “weather balloon” theory, noted, “Strange how the news never had the guy explain how he got the flared powered balloons to stay in triangular formation.”
A doubting poster on Signonsandiego’s board cited the altitude, speed, and maneuverability of the objects as reasons to question the lantern theory.
In all fairness, Channel 10’s Allison Ash — “acting on a tip” — did interview Fassler, who “explained how he creates the hovering lights with weather balloons and street flares.” For its part, Channel 6, whose phones were “ringing off the hook” with sightings of “a triangle of red lights,” reported in its online account that the sky-watchers’ descriptions “sounded identical” to the objects that, in the station’s prior news stories, had “turned out to be Chinese sky lanterns.”
To its credit, Signonsandiego, was slightly more circumspect, stating that the best of photos sent to them by viewers “would appear to indicate” the lights came from the lanterns. Despite writing, somewhat cryptically, “Sometimes strange lights in the sky are just that,” reporter Andrew Kleske quoted a San Carlos woman who — after a bit of internet research on the popular, Chinese paper contraptions — was somewhat skeptical of the lantern explanation.
As for Todd Fassler — whose “confession” was readily accepted by Channel 10 — he told Allison Ash that in addition to being fun, his hobby “gives you guys a job.” [None of the above reporters were available for comment.]
Advocacy or Sloppy Reporting?
No One Favors Drunk Driving
The headline “Despite Deaths, DUI Arrests Skyrocket” implies cause-and-effect. Reporting on the 798 San Diego area drunk-driving arrests during the last two weeks of 2009, nbcsandiego.com noted that there were nearly twice as many of the hapless handcuffed as there had been during the same period in 2008.
But why would fatal auto accidents — commonplace in San Diego County regardless of the booze factor — decrease the number of local busts of motorists deemed under the sway of John Barleycorn? The coverage not only failed to make a case for the conclusion, it unwittingly offered a convincing and contradictory theory by quoting a spokesman for the local authorities who cited the yearly “crackdown” as the reason for the increase.
Reporter Steven Luke crossed the line from sloppy reporting to open editorializing when he wrote, “the message isn’t sinking in...some drivers continued to defy laws and logic by driving drunk.” When I asked Luke whether he intended to sermonize, he stated, “The journalist’s job is to serve the public. I try to be down the middle as much as I can, but when it comes to real drunk driving — where people are arrested — no one’s in favor of that.”
At least one message-board poster took this as a cue to agitate for an even more Draconian crackdown — permanent car confiscation for first offenders and the “firing squad” for recidivists.
By contrast, the local peacock affiliate took on a different tone when it reported a fatal car crash that occurred on Sunday, January 3, at a Carl’s Jr. restaurant in El Cajon. The online story by Michelle Wayland gave an account of a Carl’s Jr. customer — sitting in a booth with his back to a plate glass window — who was killed by a speeding car that smashed into the burger joint. According to the police, the victim was “hurled from one end of the restaurant to the other.” Despite quoting a witness who stated, “He didn’t hit the brakes. He didn’t swerve,” the reporter failed to mention anything that might have lent insight as to why the driver (assuming the crash wasn’t intentional) was grossly incompetent. Could this have been an “age-related” accident?
Commentsjhuly
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Aug. 26, 2019