About that ad... Comments
As if the Alerus needs to buy advertising to get special treatment from the Grand Forks Herald's editorial staff.
But really does anyone think it's ok for the Alerus Commission to be spending our money misleading us?
Posted by: The Whistler on 2/27/2009 10:18 AM
The fact that we do not treat the Alerus Center as an illegitimate institution in the life of the city, as you seem to think, does not constitute special treatment.
Like I've said before, when you're on the far right everybody looks like a leftist.
Posted by: Tu-Uyen on 2/27/2009 2:24 PM
Well in my opinion you treat them like an institution above criticism. Any criticism of them results in a personal attack from the employees of said newspaper.
For example, the point of this post was a question posed by another commenter here. All he asked was how much the ad that was run by the Alerus Center on Thursday was.
I think it's a legitimate question considering how much the taxpayers are on the hook for that place.
The host of this blog took that legitimate question and turned it into an attack on his professionalism. Then in continuing his professionalism that up until them WASN'T in question he turned around and attacked that persons right to comment anonymously.
Nice work.
Posted by: The Whistler on 2/27/2009 3:01 PM
How is the Alerus even a right vs. left issue? Seems to me that the chief problems circle around transparency and accountability.
Isn't that what Obama campaigned on?
Seems to me that expecting public leaders to be honest about expenditures of taxpayer dollars, and expecting said expenditures to be open to public scrutiny, is about as non-partisan as it gets.
It's very easy to dismiss critics with personal attacks aimed at their credibility. Jack Zaleski and his tendency to label anyone disagreeing with him as a "partisan," is evidence enough of that. But it's lazy, and hardly conducive to open and honest debate.
Posted by: Rob on 2/27/2009 3:12 PM
Whistler: The implication seemed to be that they paid us and we don't say anything mean about them. So only people like the Whistler are able to tell the truth.
Rob: Well, it is a left-right issue. There's this belief among those like the Whistler that it's using tax dollars and it's not an absolutely essential city service so it shouldn't be there. And, if the city counts tax dollars as part of revenue, they're frauds.
I'm sorry but honest people can disagree about what the legitimate use of taxes ought to be.
Financial transparency is a separate issue, which I do mention several times in this blog. I do think the Alerus Center ought to be more open -- for example, providing the cash flow statement -- but I don't go around calling people liars so maybe you've failed to notice.
In fact, I actually did ask Alerus Center people what they paid for the ad. When they mentioned the ad, the first thing I said was I'm not sure taxpayers would be so keen on them spending tax dollars that way.
I've been reluctant to mention what their reply because it involves my employer. But, since they said it, I guess there's no harm in passing on.
Do you know what they said? It costs nothing. It was a trade: our ads in the arena for their ads. I can't speculate why but if you've been in business, you can probably make a good guess.
If you want to talk about open and honest debate, cease calling people liars and frauds and clowns. Cease questioning people's integrity and professionalism. Accept that people may honestly believe that what they believe.
Honest debate is debate that focuses first on policies and decisions and the underlying assumptions. If the debate involves questions about my integrity or the integrity of my paper, you bet I'm gonna defend myself.
And, as I've said again and again, anonymous comments are fine by me. Anonymous comments that question another's integrity are dishonest because there's no way to guess if the anonymous person has an ulterior motive. There is a distinction even if some choose to pretend there isn't.
Posted by: Tu-Uyen on 2/27/2009 7:22 PM
Costs nothing? Please. Does the Alerus consider what they traded for it as having no value?
First of all if they didn't trade with the Herald they could sell that advertising. Maybe they have a glut of advertising but that would only be because they are over what the market is willing to pay.
On the other hand it might make sense for the Alerus to trade, they might get more value that way. However that raises an important point.
They have an opportunity cost for burning that advertising space. That is they should be using it to sell tickets to an event to create revenue rather than using it to mislead the public.
But then what do they care. They aren't spending their own money (or in this case misusing an asset.)
But thanks for answering that question.
Posted by: The Whistler on 2/27/2009 7:47 PM
What do you mean they are not spending their own money? They are spending my money, your money and THEIR money. It's everybody's money who lives in this town. Not just yours because you bitch about it all the time. But I do like the fact that you are a squeaky wheel about this topic. We need more like you. Don't ever change that about you.
Posted by: Fighting Sioux forever on 2/27/2009 9:05 PM
"There's this belief among those like the Whistler that it's using tax dollars and it's not an absolutely essential city service so it shouldn't be there."
Is the inference to be drawn here that it IS an essential city service, like police, fire, snowplowing? Seems people got along fine without it. There was the Firehall Theater and the Fritz for entertainment, for example. And plenty of places for catering weddings and the like. The notion that the Alerus is somehow a sine qua non for GF, and therefore it must exist at any price, seems to be held only by the commission, council, and Herald.
Posted by: ec99 on 2/28/2009 10:40 AM
""Whistler: The implication seemed to be that they paid us and we don't say anything mean about them.""
After going back and rereading my post, I guess I can understand why you feel like a victim in this. I just thought it very interesting that a full page ad came out when they were trying to hide how much the Alerus was REALLY costing the taxpayers.
Honestly though, if Whistler and others, hadn't pushed it, would we have found out about it?
Or would it have been one sentence buried on page 13 just so the paper can say "We mentioned it and it's not our fault you didn't see it."
Do you think you would have brought it to our attention as an addition to your articles in your blog or would it have been one of the "". . . hot stories that people want to read."" ?
"" . . . most of the money that newspapers make is from advertising not readership."" So tell us how would advertising be sold if a paper doesn't have enough ""readership.""
Don't get me wrong, in no way do I believe you have 'Advertising' pre-read your articles nor do I recall ever accusing "". . . the City Beat of taking a cut. . . ""
Posted by: C. Y. on 2/28/2009 1:38 PM
bjerke for mayor
Posted by: what do you think on 2/28/2009 10:17 PM
"'There's this belief among those like the Whistler that it's using tax dollars and it's not an absolutely essential city service so it shouldn't be there.'"
Is the inference to be drawn here that it IS an essential city service, like police, fire, snowplowing? Seems people got along fine without it."
ec99: No, I don't think that's the inference he is making. I believe that Tu-Uyen was summerizing Whistler's general position that public funds should ONLY be spent on essential services. (I'm not sure if that is Whistlers position, but that was the summerization) Tu-Uyen WAS NOT saying that the Alerus was an essential service. But he was setting out for us the debate to discuss....... namely, what should public funds be spent on. Should some monies go to services that are not essential but might be beneficial to the community? That's where the debate should be at, namely does the Alerus Center provide overall benefit to the community?
Since I'm not a taxpaying member of the GF community, I will not enter that debate, but I didn't want Tu-Uyen's comment to be mis-understood.
Posted by: Under the EGF red roof on 3/01/2009 12:27 AM
need some cheese with that whine?
Posted by: gf herald reader on 3/01/2009 9:11 AM
Need some intelligence with that pea brain? Surprised you can even read the paper. I can make snarky comments all day, too, and add nothing to the debate.
Posted by: Whistler Wayne on 3/01/2009 7:10 PM
you just did
Posted by: gf herald reader on 3/01/2009 10:46 PM
Hey get back to work! The Slurpee machine needs cleaning.
Posted by: Bjerke for Mayor on 3/02/2009 2:06 AM
Cooking projections to get a project passed by voters that was simply, and obviously, non-viable.
Now, scamming gov dollars to cover the fact of exactly how unviable this project is?
Can someone please take the shovel away from these guys?
Please?
Posted by: Anon on 3/02/2009 9:45 AM
Whistler Wayne
Uh oh, someone's trying to crack Whistler's super-top-secret identity!
Posted by: Rob on 3/02/2009 11:35 AM
Yeah, Whistler better look out. The Blog Police are closing in.
Posted by: Weather Underground on 3/02/2009 12:17 PM
About the ad, what did it cost?
I know you accepted Kurt's, or whoever's, answer that it's trade. But even if it's trade, the value has to be declared for taxes. How about those Alerus meetings? I think the people deserve to know. It is news.
Additionally, how much money is wasted serving EVERYONE breakfast? The City Council doesn't feed us, why does the Alerus?
Posted by: Gus on 3/05/2009 7:45 PM
