Freep No longer Trustworthy?

[sehender1]

Yes. And for the same reasons.
I think Johnson's positives [[this is a guy with a 25-year history in Detroit, by the way) just outweigh his negatives.

It's not that I agree with what he did last year, or that I would say his conduct then doesn't matter. But his knowledge of the charter, his understanding of its shortcomings and enthusiasm for fixing those shortcomings made him stand out among the other candidates. Based on what he knows and is saying, he's, in our judgment, a top-five candidate.

I'll point out that I think it's very easy to discount candidates from afar, without seeing them up close. The endorsement process, which gives us a very close-up, personal look at the entire field, makes the choices much, much closer.

It's fine that you would elevate his conduct on the Kilpatrick scandal above that. We just wouldn't.


[[and for the record, I hated Kool Aid even as a child. I'm more of an Orange Crush guy. :-))

And kraig, let me ask YOU a question.
Have you ever met Johnson? Talked to him about his role in the Kilpatrick scandal or anything else?
And have you met any of the other candidates?

[Detroit500]

The Free Press has become a joke. What used to be "The New York Times" of the midwest has been transformed basically into a daily collage of Associated Press stories. The majority of reports also typically lack detail, statistics, and frankly read closer to press releases than real pieces of journalism. Mitch Albom and Rochelle Riley are great columnists, but too much is lacking.

I know that money is tight, but the paper needs to be at least 5-6 pages longer in Section A alone. If the Freep is only going to publish 2 sections Monday-Wednesday and Saturday, you can't have an entire section only be Sports -- It's disproportionate coverage compared to what is "really" affecting and concerning most people. The Detroit News has caught onto this and at least Tuesday-Thursday and Saturday combines Sports and Business into Section B.

Of course, with the internet today [[not to mention the telephone), I'm not entirely sure why these newspapers need entire "bureaus", it seems you could easily place 2 reporters and a photographer in Washington, New York, Lansing, and have the rest of the staff based in Detroit [[no Oakland, Macomb, Wayne separate offices) and call it a day.

They really ought to just disolve this Detroit Media Partnership JOA. It has allowed BOTH papers to become lackluster, trite, and uninteresting without suffering the consequences of competition. After reading these papers [[which I very much love and want to see be VERY successful) it does not surprise me at all that New York Times and Wall Street Journal circulations have actually risen over the past few years. If the Freep & News are emblematic for the type of writing that the newspaper industry as a whole, I can see why people are no longer subscribing to their local papers.

[kraig]

Yes. And for the same reasons.
I think Johnson's positives [[this is a guy with a 25-year history in Detroit, by the way) just outweigh his negatives.

It's not that I agree with what he did last year, or that I would say his conduct then doesn't matter. But his knowledge of the charter, his understanding of its shortcomings and enthusiasm for fixing those shortcomings made him stand out among the other candidates. Based on what he knows and is saying, he's, in our judgment, a top-five candidate.

I'll point out that I think it's very easy to discount candidates from afar, without seeing them up close. The endorsement process, which gives us a very close-up, personal look at the entire field, makes the choices much, much closer.

It's fine that you would elevate his conduct on the Kilpatrick scandal above that. We just wouldn't.


[[and for the record, I hated Kool Aid even as a child. I'm more of an Orange Crush guy. :-))

And kraig, let me ask YOU a question.
Have you ever met Johnson? Talked to him about his role in the Kilpatrick scandal or anything else?
And have you met any of the other candidates?

I have met Johnson before. He's a very nice guy and smart as well. Guess what? So is Lonnie Bates and Kwame Kilpatrick. Would you endorse them as well? I'm sure in a sit down interview, Kwame would blow me away with his answers, in the same manner that Johnson blew you away. However, part of the purpose of a vetting process is to find out how someone has actually performed on jobs they've previously held. In this case, you had the benefit of seeing Johnson perform publicly. As Corporation Counsel, the Brown vs the City of Detroit [[City of Detroit, which happens to be comprised of the citizens that he stated he wasn't responsible to) case was his responsibility. As pointed out in your very own paper, when it was time to accept the responsibility of his title, he chose not to. He witnessed the mayor and the attornies that were either working for the City or contracted to the City do a complete about face on their positions regarding the settlement of that case. There isn't anything in the charter that was vague about his responsibilities that would have kept him from finding out what was going on. He simply chose not to. We don't need someone that has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity developing policy for the city. I guess you feel otherwise.

I've met a few of the other candidates. I can agree with you on Cara Blount. While I supported his mayoral campaigns, I can't go with Freman Hendrix either. He's more interested in getting on the Charter Commission to keep himself in play and position himself to cut deals than to actually set policy.

I would take Jeff Hunt and Andy Linn over some of your picks.

[sehender1]

Kraig, that's a very well-reasoned argument. I just don't agree. No biggie.

I like Andy Linn and Jeff Hunt a lot too. We had to pick nine, and we chose the nine we thought were most up to this particular task [[remember, this is a group that will design the framework of Detroit government, NOT policy).

Hope you don't hold our difference of opinion against us forever! ;-)

[irish_mafia]

EMG,

Welcome to minority status. While there are plenty of people who agree with your views of the news, very few of them reside on this blog.

Fox is one of the few digestible news stations and even they can only be taken in doses.

As for the Freep, their editorials have been about as thought provoking as SpongeBob for decades

[cloud_wall]

The Johnson endorsement makes plenty of sense. Who better to identify and correct the flaws in the current Charter than someone whose job it was to interpret that mess? His own troubles were directly tied to the Charter itself. He can also call on those who worked for him, who have been with the City Law Dept for years, for insight.

John Johnson isn't a fabulously impressive guy, IMO, but he always struck me as someone who cared about the well being of the people he worked for and wanted to do the best job he could. I think he'll do a solid job if elected.

As for the freep, it's not fair to single out one paper for suffering the same symptoms that affect the entire industry. It's hard to accomplish consistent top-notch reporting with fewer and fewer reporters.

[urbanpioneer]

Typical free press apologist. If you make your decision, make it, and don't back track or apologize. If you want to talk about how the FREEP not being trustworthy --- let's talk about Rochelle Riley. 1. Where does she live? In ANN ARBOR!! Recall that column about how she was robbed? It NEVER mentions that she lives in Ann Arbor. Wouldn't that be Journalism 101 disclosing where you live? WHY didn't editors make her mention it? It's a crucial fact to the story. At the very least, she should have mentioned what county she lives in --- maybe she and her editors felt if she did that, it would be like the pulling open the curtain that the Wizard of Oz hid behind. She made it sound like she lived in Detroit. I think she last lived here in 2002. 2. She talks about her "staycation" in Detroit. Uh, Rochelle, a staycation is where you live - not a city 40 miles away. She is the mistress of the half-truth.

[jerrytimes]

I think a LOT of news is not trustworthy these days. Most is ultra-liberally biased. The one that comes closest to me in terms of trustworthy would be Fox News, but even that is questionable at times.

Of course the current majority of the U.S. voting population, as evidenced by the recent election of Obama, would say just the opposite.

I completely agree for one reason. Fox News often has has a libera or someone with an opposing viewpoint to argue the topic. I never see other news organizations doing the same.

[Detroit500]

Some would say the Freep has Albom. While he isn't a "Reagan Conservative", he has attracted a lot of flack over his rejection of ObamaCare.

[ThaFuzz]

I completely agree for one reason. Fox News often has has a libera or someone with an opposing viewpoint to argue the topic. I never see other news organizations doing the same.

I know! All the other MSM media outlets are totally stacked with scorpios and virgos!

[pffft]

Yeah, I don't know if Albom can ever claim to be a liberal again after that column decrying the Obama health plan...and all the unwashed masses who refuse to get jobs and would be covered with Cadillac health plans paid for by his hard-earned paycheck...

Taking the position that the wealthy already pay too much in the way of taxes, after the last 8 years when they've basically had free reign over the free enterprise system...wow.