It's fairly clear that Lou Brancaccio, the editor of the Columbian, wants us to THINK the paper is flexible and responsive.
He babbled on about their Reader's Advisory Council, a collection of bobble-headed, Amen Choir types that, to hear him tell it, seem to think, among other lies, that "Members felt our bridge coverage continues to be good. "
That any group could possibly believe that substituting opinion for news; lies for genuine polls, and failing to demand a vote for the entirety of this debacle simply confirms how utterly worthless this group is.
They are, in fact, a reflection of a student government, in, say, middle school. They have no real power; they go through the motions but rarely make any real change, and ultimately, they pretty much wind up becoming a reflection of the school administration.
Whoever these people are, their apparent discussions about paint jobs on this Titanic while they continue to support the nonsensical and indefensible positions of this paper... positions that have shoved them towards bankruptcy, serve to confirm how much they serve the role of window dressing... and how little impact or effect they could have, even if they wanted to have any impact, because it's clear that as change agents, they fail.
If this group has not roundly condemned John Laird's divisive and damaging columns; if this group has not repeatedly demanded fairness and accuracy in the Columbian's coverage of the I-5 Bridge/Loot Rail propaganda or that this paper demand a vote on the entirety of that debacle, then they are worthless; not representative of this community and serve no real purpose.
When the Columbian ran those fake polls suggesting that everything is hunky dory about loot rail, did they protest, or did they just sit there and nod like idiots?
The failure of this paper to implement any substantive changes... to go out and scam a B&O tax break when the rest of small business in this state is suffering FAR worse than they are... the failure to actually LISTEN and CHANGE shows that, essentially, you've put together a group that amounts to just another Amen Chorus... or that the paper ignores their positions, much like they ignore most of the positions stated under Brancaccio's columns.
You see, where this idea makes any money is where it's resulted in any changes. And as carefully as I read Brancaccio's column, I failed to note a single instance where this group or any other source of criticism has EVER made any real impact or difference to this paper. Brancaccio says they "WILL" see changes, but that infers that this group, which has been here for years, HASN'T YET MADE ANY DIFFERENCE.
Having the group? Swell. Ignoring them or any other opposition to what you're doing, particularly while you're in the midst of Chapter 11?
Kinda reminds me of the Supreme Soviet or the former Iraqi Congress under Saddam.
A lot of voting. But not a lot of opposing.
And then, as it turns out, if Lou doesn't "like" you, he censors your ability to comment on his columns.
The irony of his latest scam is the end of his latest bogosity:
The absurdity of this is that as I write this, a grand total of FOUR posters have been allowed to comment.
If someone wants to comment, let them have their say. I try to keep my pie hole shut as much as I can.
I learn more when I'm listening than when I'm talking.
So start talkin'! I'm listening.
FOUR. (There are 5 posters, but Lou is two.) Lou will probably point to the few comments as some sort of sign that everyone believes this paper is hunky dorry, and all's well. Other columns Lou have written have resulted in 50, 60 or even more posters telling him how idiotic his positions are.
This column, magically... mysteriously.... not one.
Now, for several months (since the website was redone) many posters have commented on the incompetence of the system because posting there is a hit or miss business.
There have been a number of complaints; posters post, but the post doesn't show up; posters post and the post disappears without comment (censored) and the like.
Brancaccio is fully aware of the idiocy of this system, but merely says his webmaster, Jeff Bunch, should be emailed about this stuff.
That's odd, but yet another sign of Brancaccio's incompetence: Bunch should be called in. He should be told to fix the problem, a problem that has gone on for 9 months now; and if HE can't fix it, Brancaccio should get someone who can.
The incompetent aspect of this is very telling: If this moron won't even fix an obvious SYSTEM problem with his web page, then how is it that anyone could possibly expect him to make any of the many, massive, substantive changes needed to make this paper even remotely competitive and fiscally viable?
Or, we have the second, likely, possibility: censorship.
When Brancaccio says "So start talkin'! I'm listening," what he REALLY means is "If you AGREE with me, I want to hear it. If you DON'T agree with me, then don't bother."
Either way, the RAC is a joke, a farce, and another in the series of offenses to this community.
Friday, June 19 11:38 p.m.
BY LOU BRANCACCIO,
And if you're lucky enough to have the summer off, have fun.
We typically give the summer off to our Readers Advisory Council. Of course, they have lives other than just hanging out on our council. But we do hope they have fun, as well.
Our council helps to guide us. In essence, they are another set of eyes on what we do. So throughout the year, we meet every other month to have them tell us how they think we're doing.
We don't turn down positive feedback from them, but we let them know that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for what we can do better so we can get better.
The group is made up of community members, and it's a pretty diverse group. They come from many walks of life.
The only requirement is that they read The Columbian and/or regularly look at our Web site.
We often take their advice, and they'll see changes in The Columbian. Still, a few members feel their views aren't executed. And that's because we can't execute every idea given to us. But certainly, we listen.
We listen to others as well, including those who comment on our Web site. I get quite the group, for example, that comments on this column online.