KCRag Forum

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ^^^
Let's see.  A downtown stadium tying up 4 to 6, or more, blocks sitting empty for 280 days a year, bringing no life at all to downtown.  In its place have those same blocks occupied by offices, retail, restaurants, residences, etc. bringing life to downtown just about every day of the year.
I will take the second choice.

Some simple math... Royals average at least 15k per game in attendence.  Multiply that by 80 games.

That's 1,200,000 people who would be milling around downtown before, during and after a game.

Besides, currently there are plenty more than just 4-6 blocks sitting empty right now.  And I can tell you that they're not bringing in 1M+ to downtown.

trailerkid wrote: The SOS campaign took out a lot of advertising in the Star...I think its value was probably in the 10s of thousands of dollars. It's the same as Comedy Central not airing anti-Scientology stuff for fear of loss of advertising revenue. Objectivity flies out the window when a business is involved.

Add a 0 to that.  Star ads are very, very expensive.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Not saying a stadium would not help (very limited) downtown, but the Star took the view of what was best for the Kansas City area as a whole, not a small section of the whole area.
There is a difference.

There is also a difference between using the facts at hand to support an opinion or using fear, half-truths and blatent lies to press an agenda.

Having an opinion is one thing; ignoring truth is another, especially for a newspaper.

TheNorthlander wrote: There is also a difference between using the facts at hand to support an opinion or using fear, half-truths and blatent lies to press an agenda.

Having an opinion is one thing; ignoring truth is another, especially for a newspaper.

they did not ignore anything. they supported the views as a whole of the publication, the columnists, and the editors. they decided what would be best for ALL of kcmo, not just the cbd, and backed this.

kcdcchef wrote: they did not ignore anything. they supported the views as a whole of the publication, the columnists, and the editors. they decided what would be best for ALL of kcmo, not just the cbd, and backed this.

The paper should not be "supporting" anything outside of the editorial page and columnists.  The Star's news coverages of the issue was slanted heavily towards the YES side.

lock&load wrote: The paper should not be "supporting" anything outside of the editorial page and columnists.  The Star's news coverages of the issue was slanted heavily towards the YES side.

why not? newspapers always do this. every four years, newspapes and magazines all across america endorse presidential candidates. news publications and periodicals support angles all of the time. i am sure you had no problem with the star and 810 supporting the sprint center, did you?

kcdcchef wrote: why not? newspapers always do this. every four years, newspapes and magazines all across america endorse presidential candidates. news publications and periodicals support angles all of the time. i am sure you had no problem with the star and 810 supporting the sprint center, did you?

No, the editorial pages of a newspaper support canidates, but the paper as a whole should not.  I would not like to see the Star support even an issue I am in favor of in it's news content.  I want facts, so I can make a decision.

810 on the other hand is all about opinions.  Their entire operation is the "editorial page," so I don't have a problem with them taking a stand one way or another.

lock&load wrote: No, the editorial pages of a newspaper support canidates, but the paper as a whole should not.  I would not like to see the Star support even an issue I am in favor of in it's news content.  I want facts, so I can make a decision.

810 on the other hand is all about opinions.  Their entire operation is the "editorial page," so I don't have a problem with them taking a stand one way or another.

every four years, in presidential elections, newspapers support candidates. if you do not believe me, look it up, or ask anyone on here. every four years, and actually, every two, newspapers make clear their support of a candidate. this is very common.

you have no prob with 810 taking a stand, okay, that is fine, however, with the star, did you or did you not have a problem with the star supporting the sprint center? the kansas city star is not unique, they are doing what all papes do. supporting one side or one issue. a lot, if not most, papers do this.

Chef, the Editorial Board of a paper supports the candidate.  This is Lock's point.  There's a big bold line between editorials/columns and the News.

A lot of people feel the Star muddled around this line with regards to the stadium issue.  They feel the News Department didn't do a worthy job of feeling out the issue and asking tougher questions.  One could call these people sore loosers, but this fact really bothered a lot of folks in the city.

Kard wrote: Chef, the Editorial Board of a paper supports the candidate.  This is Lock's point.  There's a big bold line between editorials/columns and the News.

A lot of people feel the Star muddled around this line with regards to the stadium issue.  They feel the News Department didn't do a worthy job of feeling out the issue and asking tougher questions. 

Thank you for seeing the distinction.  I have no problem with a newspaper taking a position, on the editorial page.  The news coverage should be as even-handed as possible, presenting BOTH sides of the issue.

I rarely if ever agree with the editorial position of the Wall Street Journal, but find the news content to be very intelligent and informative.  There is a clear distinction between the two.

I doubt the Star made a concerted effort to slant their coverage of the stadium issue. It was easier to do stories about the drawings, events, and press releases put out by the YES side rather than actually ask the hard questions and dig for facts.  Most likely laziness more than anything else.

And chef, I did not have a problem with the Star supporting the arena, OR the stadium issue, on the editorial page.  I honestly don't remember the coverage of the arena in the rest of the paper that well.

Kard wrote: Chef, the Editorial Board of a paper supports the candidate.  This is Lock's point.  There's a big bold line between editorials/columns and the News.

A lot of people feel the Star muddled around this line with regards to the stadium issue.  They feel the News Department didn't do a worthy job of feeling out the issue and asking tougher questions.  One could call these people sore loosers, but this fact really bothered a lot of folks in the city.

you can call it the editorial board if you would like, however, every fourth october, every major newspaper in this country shows who the paper supports. they do not say "the editorial board" they say the washington post supports al gore. i am done with this, i do not wish to participate in another pissing match with you two. you can even look into this with usa today, they run a piece every november, showing, which candidates the newspapers support, and they do not say the editorial board, they just say the paper. in fact, in 2004, this was a big deal when some papers did not want to support kerry or bush, however, it was and is a long standing tradition for the publication to do it. whatever. i am not going to get sucked into this. i have made my point.

a lot of the people, who have ill feelings towards the star for supporting the stadium side, had NO problem with the star supporting the sprint center. yes, or no?

Editorial boards endorse candidates, but that doesn't mean the news division starts slanting their coverage towards a candidate. Don't be ridiculous chef.

KCMax wrote: Editorial boards endorse candidates, but that doesn't mean the news division starts slanting their coverage towards a candidate. Don't be ridiculous chef.

come on max, you are going to tell me that newspapers are objective now? come on. there are papers that tilt conservative and liberal all over the country, and you know it. they write columns that way, and cover the news that way. dont be silly.

The "article" stating support for the issues/candidates is in the Editorial section.  It's just another page of the paper, but it's a huge difference.  It's the only section, besides columns, in which opinions are (supposed to be) allowed to be expressed by the paper.

Any "support of the paper" to a candidate or issue must be here, not in the News sections.

Any News stories that express opinion are looked down upon.  Likewise, any paper who does NOT investigate issues fairly and impartially is also looked down upon.

kcdcchef wrote: come on max, you are going to tell me that newspapers are objective now? come on. there are papers that tilt conservative and liberal all over the country, and you know it. they write columns that way, and cover the news that way. dont be silly.

Ah, I guess that makes it okay then. Must be a fan of FOX NEWS.

kcdcchef wrote: come on max, you are going to tell me that newspapers are objective now? come on. there are papers that tilt conservative and liberal all over the country, and you know it. they write columns that way, and cover the news that way. dont be silly.

Chef, your just wrong on this one.  All major newspapers have a strict division between their editorial sections and their news sections.  Different editors and writers completely.  When you hear that the Washington Post has endorsed canidate X, that is their editorial board giving out the endorsement.  The news section has nothing to do with that and it doesn't in anyway impact the articles they write.

kcdcchef wrote: you can call it the editorial board if you would like, however, every fourth october, every major newspaper in this country shows who the paper supports. they do not say "the editorial board" they say the washington post supports al gore. i am done with this, i do not wish to participate in another pissing match with you two. you can even look into this with usa today, they run a piece every november, showing, which candidates the newspapers support, and they do not say the editorial board, they just say the paper. in fact, in 2004, this was a big deal when some papers did not want to support kerry or bush, however, it was and is a long standing tradition for the publication to do it. whatever. i am not going to get sucked into this. i have made my point.

a lot of the people, who have ill feelings towards the star for supporting the stadium side, had NO problem with the star supporting the sprint center. yes, or no?

Chef, you are correct that USA today runs a tally of what papers have supported particular canidates.  Again though, this is the editorial page making the endorsements, not the paper itself.  Those who write for the editorial page have nothing to do with the rest of the paper.  You won't find a Yael Abholkah story on the front page.  It is a major distinction, and should not be dismissed out of misunderstanding or otherwise.

More information should you be interested

lock&load wrote: Chef, you are correct that USA today runs a tally of what papers have supported particular canidates.  Again though, this is the editorial page making the endorsements, not the paper itself.  Those who write for the editorial page have nothing to do with the rest of the paper.  You won't find a Yael Abholkah story on the front page.  It is a major distinction, and should not be dismissed out of misunderstanding or otherwise.

More information should you be interested

i have yet to find endorsements that say "the kc star editiorial board endorses al gore", they all say "the kc star endorses al gore". you guys can call it whatever you wish.

stawman argument

I never remember the Star emailing me to vote for a certain candidate/issue before the stadium vote.