Showing posts with label conflicts of interests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflicts of interests. Show all posts

Saturday, September 13, 2008

COME TO OUR BOOK THING!

Does the Record have something going on today? I couldn't tell based on the 307 references to it in the Record this week. (OK, Google search only brings up 5, but look how god damn organized the results are.) They even invaded the fucking sports page! Funny, I don't remember the Record mentioning that same Slamson and Kings Cheerleaders when they came to Fats last year. EliteXC wishes they had gotten this kind of steady publicity. I don't exactly remember a full page feature for them. But thanks for the added meaning to the "shit noone will read" tag.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Quick Links for 9/12

Next month isn't going to be a good month to get hurt or die. It continues to amaze us how we can't even manage to have the most basic of public services without some sort of political bickering or infighting. Granted government shit so it has to be political but we're fighting over who gets to respond to emergencies? How about whoever gets their first? And the cemetary's problem has to be one of the stupidest things we've seen since...ok last week. But still what's the difference between spending money or only spending the interest that money accrues? Bullshit apparently.

Back when the 76 over by In-and-Out dropped gas prices below $4, the Record promptly lost their shit and gave them a week's worth of coverage. At the time I said "I know gas prices are bad, but the "look how low the gas prices are!" story should be saved for at least sub-$2 gas. And even that seems kinda high." Well, guess what? See, we're making progress.

This seems like an appropriate reaction.

While none of us here are big fans of soft news, we do believe in the importance of getting Stockton's large immigrant popularion involed in the voting process. Except for when it turns into a front page political advertisement for Ann Johnston. Here's hoping they give equal time to Clem Lee, Sanchez, and Ralph Lee White. (Those are the mayoral candidates right? We've been in an "absolutly no election discussion" bubble since McNerney got elected)

Speaking of conflicts of interests, we understand they're the only real paper who can cover this event, but it's not really newsworthy. Plus they put an insert in about it the day before, did they really need to hog up the entire front page of the LENS section and have that glorified ad attempt to resemble actual news? If you have to quote your boss for the article, you probably shouldn't write it.

Has anybody sen El Duke since last night?