Speak out blogs

Blogs home loosecaboose

Missing article

The other day there was a short article on the Signal web page about the city not hooking up electricity for the play downtown. There was at least one or two other comments beside the one I made, so I was not the only one to see it. The next day it was gone, and no mention of the incident in today's hard copy issue. What happened? The city must have relented.

Comments

NanCrisp 5 years, 3 months ago

The city did not relent, but a business stepped forward to supply the needed electricity. My daughter saw the "breaking news" article and your comment, and a couple of others. But when she tried to go back to the article about 5 minutes later, it had been pulled. Looks like it was the Signal that relented (on printing it, that is). Always glad to oblige the censors in City Hall.

0

loosecaboose 5 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for the reply, I really wondered.

0

kermit 5 years, 3 months ago

Nan As usual it might help if you get your facts straight before you start accusing anyone of censorship. There was a communication problem between the City and the theatre that I believe led to a story that turned out to be not entirely accurate. After the facts were established I believe the Signal did the responsible thing and pulled the story because it turned out to be a non-story after all. I have heard from an extremely reliable source that the city and the theatre have had a nice discussion and everything is fine. No harm, no foul.

Please, why do some of you insist on lookiing for conspiracies at every turn? Good grief---- The show will go on and Oompa Loompahs and squirrels will be adorable. Chill out and enjoy the show.

0

Bloggerboo 5 years, 3 months ago

Sounds like the Signal was looking for a conspiracy, not "some of you". If they post something, they certainly have the right to pull it. However, when things get pulled with no mention or further notice, guess what? People become curious, and rightly so.

Frankly, it sounds like another Signal blunder in a long line of Signal blunders. Although, I would advise the City and the theater to offer "No Comment" the next time the Signal comes knocking.

0

NanCrisp 5 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, Kermie, but I'm something of an insider on this one and got the straight up story on the actual electricity incident within a couple of hours of the said event. I have been enjoying the show, for a couple of months now. When you go to see it, check the program and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.

Things are mended, but I wouldn't say "no foul." The City pulled a foul and then realized it was very bad form. The Signal started to report it, and decided not to. Do the math.

0

kermit 5 years, 3 months ago

Nan You are not the only one with the "inside" scoop on this one. I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one. I guess it's all in how one looks at the facts of the case.

You and I would both agree that safety is the #1 priority, especially with so many children involved. Any problem arose not over the city's desire to shut the play down but to ensure public safety in the process.

The moral of this story is that in all events that require some help from the city (ie summer plays, Thomas, Planes, Trains , Maple Leaf etc. ) It is incumbent on the organization to speak to the city and get arrangements worked out well in advance of an event and make the city completely aware of all circumstances. it is dangerous to make assumptions that just because "we have always done it this way" that it won't be a problem now. Rules change, regulations change and the savy organization will get this all straightened well in advance. This is a good lesson in preparation for all of us who are involved in community events.

I am willing to give the Signal the benefit of the doubt that it there was no story here and chose to pull their on-line article instead of stirring up an unnecessary controversary. In my book that is not censorship nor is it a foul. But again, we may agree to disagree on this one too.

0

NanCrisp 5 years, 3 months ago

And in other no-story-here news, the Signal DID decide to print a silly article about a couple who solicited the services of our police department to help them out of a jam. The "news" piece comes off as an opportunity for our police chief and our newspaper to poke fun at people who ask for assistance. I sure hope that couple was from far, far away and is not around to see their story on public display in B.C.

0

TheOnlyGreyghost 5 years, 3 months ago

Pull the stick out and try to appreciate a little mild humor in the news, Nan. Sounds like you were unable to counter Kermit's points, so instead of agreeing to a draw, you decided to dig up whatever other criticism you could muster about the Signal. Nice attempt to save face by way of thread hijack.

If your delicate sensibilities are so ruffled by this story, I hope you don't read the "Weird News" feature that is a regular in the KC Star and many other syndicated papers. (And, yes, these stories come from all over--some from towns as small as Baldwin. And some stories include people's names!) What's the matter--was it your granddaughter & her boyfriend and you're afraid your biddy buddies will figure it out?

Kermit's making sense on the original topic. You might have gotten "inside information" from one party and he got very different info from someone with another perspective. How shocking that a story might have more than one side and you might not have been privy to the whole thing.

How hard would it be for you to form the words, "Well, maybe there was more to the story than I was told. It's possible that pulling the article was a valid response and not a sign of collusion between the paper and the city"?

0

Bloggerboo 5 years, 3 months ago

Greyghost, you are surely wise in the ways of journalism, be it little or small. Please answer this: why would a small paper like the Signal run an article online, then remove it without so much as a whisper? Do they not realize that actions like that make them appear devious or at least untrustworthy? Why not simply remove the content, and add this: After realizing we made a mistake and printed something before checking all facts, we have decided to remove said offending article? Or even something with much less mea culpa involved?

P.S. I am not mocking you. I am only interested in your insight.

0

TheOnlyGreyghost 5 years, 3 months ago

Blogger~ I think you make an excellent point--it would be something for the Signal (and its parent LJW) to think about. I agree that it would defuse hysterical conspiracy theorists if the Signal ran an explanation of why the story was removed.

Unfortunately, I am not "wise in the ways of journalism," so I can't hazard a guess as to why they removed the story w/o comment--but I'm pretty sure it was not for some of the nefarious reasons the more suspicious among us have offered.

0

loosecaboose 5 years, 3 months ago

And obviously, the Signal is not going to comment as to the reasons involved in this issue.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.