Shame on you - A paper should NOT sway either way!! You are to report the FACTS unbiased as it is not your JOB to persuade your readers to one side or the other
I think this is irresponsible journalism bordering upon unethical! But then again you are simply following suit to the majority of American printed publications - few are brave enough to actually be the responsible media of yesterdays
A friend mentioned that you (Chuck?) mentioned ME in News of the weird 3-5 weeks ago and just wanted a copy for my own archives. I am the Wall St astrologer so it's not too weird for me to be mentioned in generally weird news. My phone is 520-577-1158 and address is 6890 E Sunrise Dr #70 85750 Arch Crawford
Bitch away, dude. You own the ink barrel.
You are much much later getting new content up on the website on Wednesday afternoons now.
Thanks for the comments (mostly). While I think it's a given that the Weekly has a left-of-center lean at times, most of the paper's content is generally apolitical (unless you think food reviews and interviews with bands are liberal in some way) or merely critical rather than specifically partisan. Personally, I just want the city and state that I live in to be run effectively by people who actually mean what they say. I've largely given up on the idea that one party or the other has a lock on accomplishing that task, so when people do stupid things, in opposition to common sense or the will of the citizenry, I want the Weekly to call the scoundrels out. Democrat, Republican? I don't really care. Do your job and we won't call you an idiot. Simple as that. By the way, we're hardly a "mouth piece for the left." I probably get more angry calls and emails from the left side of the political spectrum than the right.
We run more conservative stuff than you think and we run more content backed with fact and in-depth research than either of you give us credit for. I hope you'll still around for the conversation, I hope you don't let your political differences with a quarter of the paper (at best) interfere with your enjoyment of the other 3/4. If you have an interesting take on Tucson culture, politics or whatever, I'd love to run your work in the Weekly, regardless of your political leanings. It's as simple as that.
Like chuckj; it seems to be the Weekly does is a strongly promote the far left and ridicule any person or organization that is right of center. Mr Boegle published one of my stories when I was a student at the U of A majoting in journalism and it could have been construed as a conservative piece. He even commented to me stating I was one of the vey few conservative pieces he had published. I understand the nature of independent press as a mouth piece for the left and I enjoy the discourse allowed in the comments. But it seems as though some of your writers prefer name calling to facts.
Mr. Gibson, you might check my comment on Tom Danehy's piece. One thing you seem to require of writers for the weekly is that they include plenty of ad hominem arguments when mentioning policies of conservatives or Republicans. That is your style, and I find it less than satisfying, although it is a common aspect of writing for the 'alternative' newspapers. I wonder what the Weekly would look like if it treated its 'opposition' as if they were sincere believers in their positions and were people who actually had intellects that suggested their positions are intended for the best for the country (city, state, county, etc.).
OK, it's Wednesday afternoon and this week's issue isn't posted to the web yet. What's up?
Good luck Dan, with bigots and hot heads like me around you'll need it.
Go for it, and good luck. I do not always agree (and quite often disagree) with the Weekly's stance on certain issues, but diversity of thought is very important, and exposing ones self to opposing viewpoints is healthy for not only the individual, but for the greater society. If more people did that, there would be less polarization.
Good luck Jimmy.
In more than 20 years of journalism, I have worked with dozens of editors in several states. Jimmy Boegle ranks as one of two who stand out from the crowd (and it isn't because all the rest took a step back to leave him hanging). He is one smart f*cker, an astute wordsmith with a level head. That last part is no small feat. Editors with level heads are a rare breed. In fact, journalists with level heads are a rare breed, making Jimmy a man who operates in a very rarified atmosphere. He corrals talent like no one I have ever met. He lets writers be writers, poking and prodding us when deadlines loom, yet letting us know at every step that he appreciates what we do. Good luck, Jimmy. I'll miss you. Seriously.
Good job, kid, making this
and the other one
possible and real for people.
Good luck; we will miss you!
Jimmy, your departure will create a void for many of us, I'm sure. In a way, I see you as a male Rachel Maddow. Both of you cut through the Scheisse and deliver it as it is. Best wishes for you in your new undertaking. But somehow, I know it will thrive.
Jimmy, you will be missed. I agree with you most of the time, which is odd, as I am a conservative independent. Iconcur with your assessment regarding some of the local businesses. A large number figure they don't have to care because they are entitled to be here. Some of the worst service I have had in Tucson was at one of the oldest restaurants, terrible service and even worse food. I won't say where, but the big black bull outside will give a hint. At 5:30, they were out of the special and it took over an hour to get an entree. On top of that the server delivered the wrong items and then took them to another table. That should get him fired for unsanitary service. But it is hard to fire family.
Well, actually I think it is a great feature. I think it resonates in a lot of minds of the readers. It's rather cathartic in its own way. I personally nominate Umberto Lopez for special recognition.
Did you ever think maybe a "get out of town" piece might simply be a bad idea? Maybe your readers have better judgment than you do.
Was curious as well so Googled the subject and found this article. Thanks, uh, it could be s or not (s) outside of the Tucson Weekly ad hoc style manual. It could have been that Javelina was the plural and the singular was Javelinum or the plural could have been Jaelinae.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation