While I was getting my beauty sleep, yesterday a few Kansas City bloggers were kicking the ass of The Star.
First . . .
JoCO Everyman skewered Mike Hendricks . . .
Even the dude from Will Not be Televised (who previously threatened to break my hand) had a decent post on the matter taking The Star to task. Here's the nearly indecipherable post from that
Bottomline Communications offers an interesting perspective as well: OPINION: SAD DAY AT KC STAR...
Best of all, Nick Sloan points out a perfectly timed counterpoint to claims of big media accuracy over bloggers:
A day after a columnist for the newspaper of record in this city attacked a very-good Kansas City blogger for getting it wrong and pompously riding his high horse as a "newsman," that very same newspaper had to correct a news item regarding the Sprint Center.In the end, KC Star Columnist Mike Hendricks and his petty complaints about accuracy quickly were thrown back in his face.
Personally, I think he missed the point of blogging and so many people don't understand criticism of the medium either . . . At it's simplest level I think it's about ANYONE and EVERYONE having a potential global audience to publish (express) themselves to the world and even if it's only photos of kittens, corporate media seemingly hates that kind of power because it makes their job as filter, gatekeeper and opinion maker useless.
Bloggers kicking The Star's ass. Right. Right.
ReplyDeleteThe dead-tree media reached a half-million people the same day you claim it was getting its ass kicked.
I notice you don't have a hit counter on your site. Telling.
Hits don't count as people Hendricks. Please learn how to use the Internet. Also, hit counters can be tricked even more easily than columnists.
ReplyDeleteDon't you have work to do reporting something you read on the Internet guy?
Grow up.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteYou got it right this time. Your observation about his missing the point is worth quoting. Especially appealing to me was your observation "....it makes their job as filter, gatekeeper and opinion maker useless". And the Star has often decided what opinions and observation and testimony or critical statemetns are to be printed. Star reporters like Spivak know their numbers are dwendling and they are still not changing. The problem with the Star is that it thinks its the guardian of the First Amendment only when it applies to what it publishes.