|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Mar 29, 2004 23:01:33 GMT -5
I'm scooping the State News...our article is up online already (you have to run a search for it). Jason got the photo-op while looking very intimidating with the long black coat and neon yellow sign. I kinda just glanced over it for now....seems pretty cool, but I'll read it more thoroughly later. Here's the URL: www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=23239 |
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Mar 30, 2004 9:22:17 GMT -5
That article turned out very well. I'm impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Mar 30, 2004 9:46:58 GMT -5
That article turned out very well. I'm impressed. We have very different impressions of well. The article's barely long enough to blink and notice. She completely left out the fact that we were participating in Relay for Life, and I have a feeling that Sean's quote at the end was just a "meh" slap-in. She totally didn't care to do good work. ~Roger |
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Mar 30, 2004 10:19:32 GMT -5
I noticed those things, but all in all, putting us in a positive light is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prothonotary on Mar 30, 2004 10:44:13 GMT -5
I tought it was pretty positive as well. At least we got something in the paper for once!
|
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Mar 30, 2004 11:24:52 GMT -5
I'll go with Heather on this one. Brief good press is better than bad press or the all-too-familiar no press at all. It was less about the event and more about the group itself, so that would explain the lack of elaboration regarding Relay for Life. It accomplished its purpose: it lets people know we exist and that we actually do stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog at School on Mar 30, 2004 12:43:11 GMT -5
I can see all those points... and press is press, of course. But I just really hate seeing it done so flippantly. I don't know if anyone has seen it in the hard copy yet... Yeah, we were on the inside turn. I don't have it in front of me, but it just seemed really thrown in there.
I should elaborate - the reason I'm disappointed is because when Ed Ronco called and said that we would be in, he indicated front page of the B. Not a corner of the turn with (as far as I recall) no teaser anywhere else in the paper.
What goes before us? The riots. From 1999. *sigh*
In general... I just don't think this is what the SN is capable of doing, and I would have thought after finally getting someone's attention and being told "oh we're so sorry... we really regret everything that's happened. We're gonna make it right" that they'd... just go a bit further. Minimalism is great in decoration, lousy in work ethic.
~Roger
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Mar 30, 2004 13:05:44 GMT -5
To me, this is just about the limit of State News's cabability, just to see something written exceeded by expectations, and there isn't really even any negative spin. We've been getting broken promises for so long that one getting only slightly broken this time is almost a miracle. Was it half-assed? Sure, but I doubt reporters and the poulace have the same perspective and passion for what we do, in their eyes it is probably satisfactory. And maybe someone will write in saying atheists are evi, make reference to our efforts, and expose people who didn't see the article to it. The word is definately getting out there so this is at least a small feather in a cap.
|
|
Still no loggy for me
Guest
|
Post by Still no loggy for me on Mar 30, 2004 14:51:26 GMT -5
I guess I'm kind of going both ways on this one. Press is press and it wasn't anything bad. Personally, however, with over 10 note pages of things I was saying, they picked some pretty unimportant quotes and missed the mark on bit on what I was saying. I also saw the photographer take at least 30 pictures, that couldn't posibly have been the best. I look like a schmuck. Cest la vive. At least we broke the paradigm of "no news is good news."
|
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Mar 30, 2004 20:28:32 GMT -5
I also saw the photographer take at least 30 pictures, that couldn't posibly have been the best. I look like a schmuck Weird...I thought you looked like an art-fag, not a schmuck. <insert rimshot/laugh track> |
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Mar 30, 2004 20:31:28 GMT -5
I think the word is sleazy. Or was it smarmy?
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Mar 30, 2004 21:30:19 GMT -5
Definitely sleazy.  |
|
