I've joked with tongue in cheek before about the problem newspapers have -- printing yesterday's news on paper and delivering it the next morning. The analogy is delivering KSFR's Monday newscasts on a CD to your doorstep Tuesday morning.
I love newspapers, but they're really beginning to feel the pinch.
The Albuquerque Journal is cutting back 10 staffers in its newsroom. They didn't say what percentage that represents.
And the Journal says it will stop home deliveries in 30 non-metro communities. Rack sales there, too.
The cutbacks at the Journal will include home delivery and rack sales north of Las Vegas, including Raton; east of Moriarty on Interstate 40, including Santa Rosa, Tucumcari and the northeast corner; much of the east side, including Clovis, Portales, Artesia, Carlsbad, Hobbs, Lovington, Alamogordo, Tularosa and Carrizozo; and the southwest corner, including Deming, Lordsburg and the Silver City area, Fantl said.
The company said those areas represent a small percentage of its total circulation. The newspaper will continue home delivery and single-copy sales in Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Taos and Espanola, western New Mexico including Grants and Gallup, the Four Corners area, Roswell in eastern New Mexico, the three-county area around Albuquerque and south to Las Cruces.
More on that and other newspaper woes here.>
Showing posts with label albuquerque journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label albuquerque journal. Show all posts
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Sunday, September 14, 2008
KSFR sets debates-watching events
Has it been four years already?
KSFR 101.1 and Santa Fe Community College plan to do it again. Our 2004 presidential debates-watching events at the college packed the house. We followed each debate with a comment period for watchers to comment.
The events about the news also made news themselves as local newspapers reported on what local residents had to say.
Example from the Albuquerque Journal.
Friday, October 1, 2004
SFCC Hosts Debate Discussion
Being a Republican in Santa Fe is tough.
Ask James L. Montoya, who on Thursday joined a group of local residents to watch the first presidential debate between President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, inside the Jemez rooms at Santa Fe Community College.
After the 90-minute debate, the remaining audience members shared their thoughts about the debate, the two candidates and other perspectives about politics and civic life in the United States.
Bill DuPuy, the news manager at KSFR-FM, moderated the discussion that lasted some 45 minutes after the official debate ended...............
And the New Mexican.
Friday, October 1, 2004
Local Voters Watch Debate at SFCC
Majority in attendance said they were unswayed by the candidates
As soon as President Bush and Sen. John Kerry stopped their debate Thursday night, dozens of Santa Fe residents continued the debate at Santa Fe Community College. Both Democrats and Republicans were well represented at the event in which the audience first watched the 90-minute debate on a large screen. In all, about 100 people attended. Later, KSFR radio news director Bill Dupuy went around the room getting comments from...
KSFR 101.1 and Santa Fe Community College plan to do it again. Our 2004 presidential debates-watching events at the college packed the house. We followed each debate with a comment period for watchers to comment.
The events about the news also made news themselves as local newspapers reported on what local residents had to say.
Example from the Albuquerque Journal.
Friday, October 1, 2004
SFCC Hosts Debate Discussion
Being a Republican in Santa Fe is tough.
Ask James L. Montoya, who on Thursday joined a group of local residents to watch the first presidential debate between President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, inside the Jemez rooms at Santa Fe Community College.
After the 90-minute debate, the remaining audience members shared their thoughts about the debate, the two candidates and other perspectives about politics and civic life in the United States.
Bill DuPuy, the news manager at KSFR-FM, moderated the discussion that lasted some 45 minutes after the official debate ended...............
And the New Mexican.
Friday, October 1, 2004
Local Voters Watch Debate at SFCC
Majority in attendance said they were unswayed by the candidates
As soon as President Bush and Sen. John Kerry stopped their debate Thursday night, dozens of Santa Fe residents continued the debate at Santa Fe Community College. Both Democrats and Republicans were well represented at the event in which the audience first watched the 90-minute debate on a large screen. In all, about 100 people attended. Later, KSFR radio news director Bill Dupuy went around the room getting comments from...
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Palin confusion
The McCain campaign is not helping the media or supporters understand what's going on.
For days, the campaign has told media that thepresumed vice president pick Sarah Palin would join John McCain in Albuquerque this Saturday. KSFR questioned that appearance when the campaign sent out an email yesterday (Sept. 2) promoting the event but not mentioning Palin. We called and the New Mexico Republican party
continued to insist Palin would be in Albuquerque.
Today, the New Mexico office tells KSFR Palin will, in fact, not appear. But the
McCain campaign website still carries an event notice saying that he will be joined in the Duke City by the vice presidential pick.
Palin's name is not mentioned as that pick. Nor is it mentioned in the schedule for events before and after Albuquerque.
For days, the campaign has told media that thepresumed vice president pick Sarah Palin would join John McCain in Albuquerque this Saturday. KSFR questioned that appearance when the campaign sent out an email yesterday (Sept. 2) promoting the event but not mentioning Palin. We called and the New Mexico Republican party
continued to insist Palin would be in Albuquerque.
Today, the New Mexico office tells KSFR Palin will, in fact, not appear. But the
McCain campaign website still carries an event notice saying that he will be joined in the Duke City by the vice presidential pick.
Palin's name is not mentioned as that pick. Nor is it mentioned in the schedule for events before and after Albuquerque.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Domenici disclosure and newspaper copyright
I've long had a problem with newspapers like the Albuquerque Journal posting a copyright notice right under the headline and byline. After all, the entire publication is copyrighted. The only reason for doing that is as a marketing tool to show they have somethig no one else has.
Such was the case in March 2007 when Sen. Pete Domenici's office handed an exclusive story to the Albuquerque Journal, thus allowing the newspaper to post the copyright notice under the headline and the byline.
But this exclusive gift to the newspaper should not have been made. Instead, the news should have been disclosed to all New Mexico media, if not to all national media. There was no such press release until the next day.
It was the disclosure that Domenici in fact had placed that now-famous phone call to the now-former federal prosecutor for New Mexico, David Iglesias, about a fraud investigation into prominent New Mexico Democrats. Domenici has now since been admonished slightly by the Senate Ethics Committee. The April 26, 2008, Washington Post editorial critiques him for not apologizing for the phone call that started it all, saying, "Mr. Domenici suffers from health problems and is retiring at the end of this Congress after a distinguished Senate career. It's too bad he will depart on this unbecoming note."
But what got my goat in March 2007 was the selective disclosure, thus the gift of an exclusive story when it was a broad matter of public interest.
Why did they do it that way? I firmly believe it was to get the disclosure out in a way that could get the story a soft landing. Such a plan would carry the hope that words written by a friendly newspaper would be picked up by the wires and others, casting as good a light as possible on the news.
I complained loudly to Domenici's office and let other media know my feelings about the sequence of events. Not only is such action unfair to the rest of the media, it also begs the ethical question about a senior elected official ignoring his total constituency in favor of one media outlet. The newspaper carry the extra copyright banner, that marketing tool I presume is there to help enrich themselves.
Furious, I dashed off an email at the crack of dawn that Sunday morning to Domenici's office. They then released this statement that same day, hours after the Journal had gone to press.
(The Albuquerque Journal story appeared Sunday, March 4, 2007. It's no longer available in archive.)
Domenici's statement March 4, 2007(also no longer available on the senator's website but I found it in another blog)
I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.
Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.
I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.
In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.
I was pleased to recommend to the President of the United States in early 2001 that he nominate Mr. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. I knew from many discussions with federal law enforcement and judicial officials that the caseload had become extremely heavy within our state.
During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.
My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.
My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.
This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.
Such was the case in March 2007 when Sen. Pete Domenici's office handed an exclusive story to the Albuquerque Journal, thus allowing the newspaper to post the copyright notice under the headline and the byline.
But this exclusive gift to the newspaper should not have been made. Instead, the news should have been disclosed to all New Mexico media, if not to all national media. There was no such press release until the next day.
It was the disclosure that Domenici in fact had placed that now-famous phone call to the now-former federal prosecutor for New Mexico, David Iglesias, about a fraud investigation into prominent New Mexico Democrats. Domenici has now since been admonished slightly by the Senate Ethics Committee. The April 26, 2008, Washington Post editorial critiques him for not apologizing for the phone call that started it all, saying, "Mr. Domenici suffers from health problems and is retiring at the end of this Congress after a distinguished Senate career. It's too bad he will depart on this unbecoming note."
But what got my goat in March 2007 was the selective disclosure, thus the gift of an exclusive story when it was a broad matter of public interest.
Why did they do it that way? I firmly believe it was to get the disclosure out in a way that could get the story a soft landing. Such a plan would carry the hope that words written by a friendly newspaper would be picked up by the wires and others, casting as good a light as possible on the news.
I complained loudly to Domenici's office and let other media know my feelings about the sequence of events. Not only is such action unfair to the rest of the media, it also begs the ethical question about a senior elected official ignoring his total constituency in favor of one media outlet. The newspaper carry the extra copyright banner, that marketing tool I presume is there to help enrich themselves.
Furious, I dashed off an email at the crack of dawn that Sunday morning to Domenici's office. They then released this statement that same day, hours after the Journal had gone to press.
(The Albuquerque Journal story appeared Sunday, March 4, 2007. It's no longer available in archive.)
Domenici's statement March 4, 2007(also no longer available on the senator's website but I found it in another blog)
I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.
Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.
I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.
In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.
I was pleased to recommend to the President of the United States in early 2001 that he nominate Mr. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. I knew from many discussions with federal law enforcement and judicial officials that the caseload had become extremely heavy within our state.
During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.
My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.
My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.
This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
