Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Jon, the problems people see with your executive >editor and your restaurant reviewer, minus the snarky >(but often funny) shots, are to a degree related. >Both these highly educated individuals seem to be >functioning in a rarefied atmosphere and oblivious to >the readers they serve. > >David S seems to be a prince of a human being but too >engrossed in commentary about national issues to pay >any mind to local issues as his predecessor did. Now >Craig may have gone too local, but David goes too >national. To have no comment at all from him about the >Pittsburgh Police shootings from him is mind-boggling. > Too busy expounding about Obama again. He may not >mean to seem insensitive, but the impression left is >he doesn't feel it worth his time to say anything >beyond the editorial page. Charges that he has no >feel for the area or doesn't want to share his views >about local matters are legit. They are not criminal >indictments, and he does have a lot on his plate. It >wouldn't take much to ameliorate this. But as it >stands the impression is left he's an unconcerned >elitist. > >Millman seems hung up on first-person, and way too >willing to lecture or talk down to her readers, even >if that is not her intent. Some readers, not just >posters over here, have found this side of her quite >irritating. She seems to be less inclusive than she >should be and like David, forgets she is writing for a >general audience, some upscale, some midscale, some >midscale terrified they're going downscale and some >downscale, period. She skews too much to the culinary >elite. Gretchen McKay is better as her cooking columns >play it in the middle but she is flexible enough to go >to the other ends when needed. Munch is too lowbrow >for his-her own good. > >There's no doubt some criticisms aimed here are coming >from the disaffected and the competition. But these >sorts of concerns, and those recently noted in City >Paper about declining arts coverage, are legit. On the >other side of the coin, why you need a wine writer is >beyond me, however. Especially when she's the same >person who could not cut it as the dining critic. Just >as the PG has to make cuts, especially in this lethal >climate for newspapers, with a junkyard competitor not >far away, it can't afford to play too much to Fox >Chapel-Sewickley or to Duquesne-Homestead without >considering the vast middle. Alienate them and you've >got troubles on top of the paper's considerable >problems. You have to be able to reach everyone and >since 2003, that seems to not be happening as much. > >When folks as obviously smart as David or China come >off sounding too smart for their own good, that's a >problem whether or not they want to believe it. > >>Criticize away. Please. And hopefully, if the >>criticism is constructive, somebody on the Boulevard >>will learn something. My problem with this particular >>post and others I have seen is the following: some are >>clearly warranted. But many others are simply >>mean-spirited, wrong-headed and, often, simply wrong. >>Ask anyone on the news desk about how critical I am of >>myself or our product and the answer is very. That's >>one way to improve -- to hold yourself, your >>colleagues and your paper to a higher standard. Like I >>said, criticize away. But I think people who call >>others out should have the courage to put their names >>to it, especially when they're being downright nasty. >>What does it do to continually lash out at our >>restaurant reviewer or our executive editor? Nobody is >>perfect, least of all me. But there should be a more >>dignified way to dis without slipping into ad hominem >>attacks, don't you think? >> >> >>>I'm with you on Dennis, Jon. On every single point >>>you raised. >>> >>>So far as the "smart alecks and cowards who like to >>>post anonymously..." bit, I love how "journalists" >who >>>routinely use anonymous sources seem to have a >problem >>>with their "anonymous critics." Also, this part of >>>your response sounds a lot like what Dennis says when >>>he comes over here, name-calls and otherwise vents. >If >>>you believe the PG should be exempt from any sort of >>>criticism, including some from within your very >walls, >>>you're being most unrealistic. Even allowing for the >>>horrible financial picture, right now the top dogs >>>seem to be running the place into the ground on any >>>number of levels. It may not be fun for you to see >>>harsh commentary directed at the Boulevard, and if >>>it's incorrect as you say, shame on the posters. But >>>be advised it's no fun for people who respected the >>>paper for years seeing what it is becoming. Your >>>defense of Dennis is sound. He seems to be one of the >>>few institutions at the paper who's not going to hell >>>in a handbasket. >>> >>>>To the smart alecks and cowards who like to post >>>>anonymously on this forum, my advice is to grow up >>and >>>>do your research. First off, gobsmacked -- meaning >>>>astounded or flabbergasted -- appears to be entirely >>>>appropriate. Secondly, as reporters we all make snap >>>>judgments about people we interview, so I have no >>>>problem with Dennis sharing his impressions with the >>>>court even if they run contrary to a doctor's >report. >>>>He was asked a question, and he answered it. So >what, >>>>he's not allowed to say his experience did not >>comport >>>>with that of a doctor? Dennis has to be wrong >because >>>>someone with an M.D. after his name has a different >>>>opinion? Finally, before you start making >assumptions >>>>-- or intimations, because that's how it appears to >>me >>>>-- about Dennis's note-retention habits, why don't >>you >>>>find out what Post-Gazette policy is first? The >>>>problem with so many posts on this forum for >supposed >>>>fact-checking, accuracy-minded journalists is that >>>>things are often said with complete ignorance. I >>can't >>>>tell you how many times I've seen people post >>theories >>>>on how or why the PG did or didn't do something that >>>>are so completely off base and absurd it's >laughable. >>>>For what it's worth, I'm looking at Dennis's desk >>>>right now, and it is pretty clean. But what does >that >>>>tell you? Dennis could have all his notes hidden in >>an >>>>underground bunker, right? Maybe that's fodder for >>>>another "fact-based" thread here. And for the >record, >>>>I have had my differences with Dennis from time to >>>>time, so I am not a blind apologist for him. But he >>is >>>>smart, tenacious and one hell of a reporter -- the >>>>kind of guy you definitely want on your team. This >>>>post struck me as nasty, obnoxious and ignorant >>enough >>>>that I thought he deserved having a colleague stick >>up >>>>for him. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When in doubt, overreach for an inappropriate word: >>>>> >>>>>"Mr. Roddy testified that Ms. Jordan was >>>"gob-smacked" >>>>>when he told her she gave $10,000 to judicial >>>>>candidate Cheryl Allen." >>>>> >>>>>Paging Dr. Roddy, Dr. Roddy ... >>>>> >>>>>"Mr. Roddy said that his experience ran contrary to >>a >>>>>doctor's report that Ms. Jordan was psychotic and >>her >>>>>memory was very impaired." >>>>> >>>>>2 + 2 = 5. Just take Dennis' word for it: >>>>> >>>>>"Under cross-examination from defense attorney >>Thomas >>>>>J. Farrell, Mr. Roddy said he threw away the notes >>>and >>>>>deleted the tape recording of the interview." >>>>> >>>>>Of course, the note destruction issue is crucial to >>>>>both the case and journalism in general. Here's a >>>>>fairly brief story on different sides of the debate >>>>> >>>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1785">http: >/ >>/ >>>w >>>>w >>>>>w.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1785</a> >>>>> >>>>>My practice and experience with other reporters is >>>>>that we all keep stacks of full note books for a >>long >>>>>time. What do you do? And what have you seen of >>>>>Dennis' desk and drawers? Full of papers and >>>>>notebooks, or neat as a pin?

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.