Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2005-04-28 17:22:39 Wow. Such a harsh review. I don't think the d&c is that bad. —RyahDahl
2005-04-28 17:28:17 IMHO, it often is. Consider today's article's about the poor kid that died at Soccer Pratice esterday. It was little news, and lots of 'Local horror! Terror! This could happen to you!" theatrics. Maybe someone will write something more even handed someday. —FarMcKon
2005-04-28 17:32:10 Another thing. A bird told me that D&C is trying to get more 30+ woman readers. Rumor is the 'Living' section editor banned carrying articles target at males of the speices. —FarMcKon
2005-04-28 18:02:06 A great review—my sentiments exactly. (-: Don't they have some labor dispute going on too? —TobinFricke
2005-07-31 05:27:48 Heavy-handed ("afraid of letting anyone with taste . . .") and unsubstantiated ("The stories are weak, with minimal research . . .). I'd like to do a wholesale revision of this entry unless the membership strenuously objects. —JohnMoriello
2005-07-31 06:03:31 It doesn't matter: this wiki (like all wiki's) mixes opinion and fact, and even if you try to make things factual, someone eventually comes along and trashes it with opinion. You can try fighting, but it's just a glorified group-edit blog in the end. LOL. —JasonOlshefsky
2005-07-31 06:34:27 That's unfortunate. My real reason for stopping by and registering was to start exploring the functionality of the software as well as the culture of the medium. I figured I would start filling in some of the gaps from the "wanted list" as a contribution to the cause. It would be unfair to lump everyone in the same group because some of the work is actually quite good, but this venture will never attain credibility if hatchet jobs are allowed to stand unchallenged. —JohnMoriello
2005-07-31 07:52:30 John, a good way to handle differing viewpoints is by restructuring the article to seperate and reflect them both. Rather than trying to eliminate one or the other, you can easily make room for positive and negative viewpoints, without sacrificing coherency. It might be worth considering a format along the lines of: Today, History, Awards/Recognition, and Controversy. I support a wholesale revision of this article, and so long as you're not eliminating anyone's contribution, you're unlikely to leave anyone offended. —RobertPolyn
2005-07-31 09:53:59 Robert: Thanks. That's a reasonable approach. I'm going to resist making revisions for now in order to give others a chance to chime in with thoughts. Maybe we can devise a template of sorts to cover all the media before I try fleshing out that silo. Considering the harsh sentiment above towards Gannett, I cringe at the beating Clear Channel may be in for. —JohnMoriello
2005-08-01 12:10:41 In the last few years they have dramaticlly cut their staff, which is evident in the quantity, and quality, of the articles in the paper. The stories are weak, with minimal research, and are consistantly slanted for the suburban living parents with children. I don't blame the reporters though. I have heard many tales (second hand) of reporters getting told to 'wrap up a story', just as they were finally collecting some good information.
For the most part, their reviews of any local events are always between good and glowing with praise. This makes it near impossible to tell what is acutally good, and what they are pushing to try and make the city look more cosmoplitan. Or maybe the D&C is just afraid of letting anyone with taste and discresion near a keyboard.
I am being a bit harsh though. There are sometimes good article in the D&C that are good journalism. It's just tough to find those gems when they are surrounded by so much lard. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF TEXT MOVED HERE Dec 2009 —FarMcKon
2005-08-01 10:02:36 John, I agree that the page is slanted, and I wrote it!!! I agree that hatched jobs reviews like this should not stand unchallegned, so maybe someone with a less biased (or more favoriable) view should correct the problems with it (hint, hint).
I have restructured the page a bit, let me know what you think of the restructure, or better yet, change it to your style, and see who comments. Also, please note the 'maybe someone will write something more even-handed someday' comment. I never really expected my review to stand this long. —FarMcKon
2005-08-01 11:17:47 "It doesn't matter: this wiki (like all wikis) mixes opinion and fact"... but, this is the beauty of a wiki (and all wikis)! If you don't like something, change it. Authorship does not equal ownership in a wiki, so feel free to correct misinformation, write facts, and mark opinion as "opinion." I've found that on rocwiki, the best-written and most accurate version usually wins out. But only if it's actually written. And Sir Jason~ I've never yet seen a page here "trashed" with opinion, though certainly people write what they think. Which in some cases proves more useful than bare fact. Ought we limit pages to just addresses and phone numbers? That's what the phonebook is for~ I think readers are able to determine fact from opinion and judge for themselves. —HeatherYager
2005-08-01 11:35:52 And John, I think you can edit anything you feel inspired to without fear of retribution. In the event that there ever is some vicious dispute over an edit, it is possible to recover past versions of a page. Welcome! —HeatherYager
2005-08-01 12:44:32 Opinions are a lot of what makes the wiki interesting, but it is nice to also serve the need for objective information. Maybe we should generally follow Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) for text that is not attributed to an individual and identified as an opinionated review? —TobinFricke
2009-12-19 12:11:55 I did a little cleanup here, but the main article needs some additional reorganization, editing, and updating since D&C represents a major media part of the Rochester scene. Any takers??? —BradMandell