quote:
its noting but her new revenue so that the Advocate can get additional revenue. reporting is not an issue here.

but your going to keep thinking whatever you want. just don't twist my words.

You keep acting as multiple people in this thread have said the motivation behind the selection of the Advocate as the official paper had anything to do with reporting quality. corndeaux saying he hopes better coverage is a result of this selection is not the same thing as saying the selection was made to improve reporting. You're the one twisting words. If you hadn't been doing that this thread probably would have died on the first page as it should have. I'm willing to chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding and move on, but you kind of were the driving force in turning this mole hill into a mountain.

This post was edited on 9/6/13 at 10:17 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Mr.Perfect

Louisiana

Member since Mar 2013

17438 posts

Posted on 9/6/13 at 10:39 am to TigerinATL

quote:
You keep acting as multiple people in this thread have said the motivation behind the selection of the Advocate as the official paper had anything to do with reporting quality

no, I have continued to say it has ZERO to do with the quality of reporting and is 100% about one group paying the other for an "official" status.

quote:
corndeaux saying he hopes better coverage is a result of this selection is not the same thing as saying the selection was made to improve reporting

where did I say that? seriously? Thats why you want to back out... you came back, saw me defending myself without reading how we got here and now realize i never said anything about improving reporting or anything to that nature. ever.

hey look at this... turns out YOU said that

quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the terrible Bounty Gate coverage by certain TP reporters played a role in this decision, but Benson said it all, they went with the paper that's still printing 7 days a week. It's not just about sponsorship dollars, it's also about exposure

I believe it has clearly become a misunderstanding and without a doubt i feel i am being painted as arguing a position I have zero interest in.

regardless, I agree that this conversation is off tract.

my positions have been steadfast...

1)print < web based news
2)this is a sponsorship, not a tipping of the hat to the Advocate. They paid for this.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by VOR

Member since Apr 2009

63658 posts

Posted on 9/6/13 at 10:42 am to TigerinATL

All anyone said is that that they hope we get better reporting as a result. Not unreasonable for a new sponsorship that is directly related to coverage. That does not imply that the sponsorship itself was based upon the relative quality of the two publications in the first place.

Seems Mr Perfect simply wanted to be didactic, albeit coming off as jejune.