Online and hitting the streets as we speak is the latest issue of the Weekly, all 184 pages of it! That’s right: It’s Best of Tucson™ time! And I am so damn excited, I can’t stop using exclamation marks!
Feel free to comment here on this week’s issue!!!
This article appears in Sep 20-26, 2007.
Yay, Best of Tucson!
Now everyone’s gonna be reading THAT instead of my really neat 5th issue of Colorez!. (ObPlug — we’re out Thursday too.) *pout*
Hey, Jimmy–with all those exclamation marks, you could come up with the title for a Broadway musical!
Good God, Kynn, that was subtle. (Please note the sarcasm.)
Exclamation points are fully justified for BOT, James!
Subtlety is my Bizarro-self’s middle name. (He writes for some conservative rag on Bizarro World, I think.)
The “sign of the impending apocalypse” section makes so much more sense now with the zombie theme.
Great issue!
Did Eegee’s win anything?
184 pages!
Yikes. I have to go out and find a copy instead of trying to read it all online.
I was in L.A. a few weeks ago and their regular issue is always around 199 words. A woman could go blind trying to read that tiny font.
I think just for the fun of it sometime we should have a Worst of Tucson issue.
might i suggest a new category?
best advertising supplement disguised as news?
i’m sure bot would win something.
King: My, you’re being quite a dick. There’s no, absolutely no relation between the BOT editorial and advertising. Readers vote on the best, and the staff picks what they like, period. So, stop spouting ignorance. Capeesh?
==–King: My, you’re being quite a dick.
wow already calling me names.
did i hit a nerve james?
i can’t wait to see how long it will take to get banned.
can you honestly deny that the bot and the heavy advt. $$$ it brings do not have a connection?
if you do then why not have a “worst of tucson” as one person suggested?
you know worst pizza, beer, coffee etc?
you know people would read it.
heck it’d also be informative.
but wait….what would happen to all those advt. after a few issues?
truth be told, and james please do come clean on this, you know in the name of honesty and journalism and all that, advertising staff desend on tucson biz every time the bot comes out encouraging them to buy space because, well you know, you just don’t want to miss out.
in fact i know first hand that a few biz have actually begun to boycott bot, haven’t they?
or maybe you haven’t heard?
ignorance is bliss.
i know nothing…
Of course our ad reps sell ads for the BOT. And into the regular paper. And onto our Web site. That’s because the Weekly is something called a “business.”
But being a good, ethical newspaper, we don’t let what ads we sell determine what we cover, be it in BOT or anywhere else in the newspaper. If we did, so many nonadvertisers wouldn’t win in BOT. If it did, our restaurant reviews wouldn’t be so blunt. If we did, we wouldn’t be so critical of the establishment in Tucson.
So, feel free to make your unfounded and ridiculous criticisms under your little anonymous pseudonym. You’re welcome to do so here, as long as you follow the comments policy rules. But, hey, you might just get called a dick in the process.
–+++– we don’t let what ads we sell determine what we cover
of course it is a biz.
and since from what i can see about the online presence there isn’t much web revenue being generated, you need every cent you can get. wonderful. lovely. but please come clean on this blurring of advt. copy vs. hard journalism.
perhaps we should look at the bot process…
what happens is the “readers” choose the biz. that are supposedly the bot.
there is not a voting breakdown for each category so we have no idea how the voting goes although those numbers are obviously available.
why are those numbers kept secret?
perhaps you can share them w/us?
some numbers would help readers understand if the bot award was decided by a landslide, slim margin or a handful of people.
anyway, once the voting happens and the “alleged” bot is chosen a so-called “journalist” is assigned to write wonderful, glowing praise about the said biz.
now what happens to their copy if they well, act like a journalist, turn in copy saying: this biz sucks if it really sucks?
my guess is: the copy is squashed, someone else is assigned, the reporter is sent to the bench.
now that question is of course rhetorical and obviously off the mark because bot is NOT journalism
it is ADVERTISING COPY.
right?
i mean whatelse do you call one-sided, unobjective glory slinging?
is that what alternative jousrnalism is (actually “alternative” journalism would do the previous mentioned worst of tucson and let the advt. be damned. or maybe for a zombie issue they’d put the greatest zombie ever on the cover: jesus h. christ himself. i know that is neither here nor there but i’ve got to live up to my dick rep.)
what i’m gettin at is bot blurs the line between the work of the legitimate journalist and marketing fella.
when i read a chow column how do i know it is an unbiased look at the restaurant, when the same “journalist” just turned in ten biased one-sided happy happy joy joy marketing nuggets?
are you following me here?
i hope so.
perceptions are everything, and a journalists trust w/the public is not something to screw with.
and please understand i’m not being a dick, but you guys really need to be honest with your readers about this.
i do know for a fact, because of conversations w/friends and co-workers who own/work for local biz that there are numerous biz which dislike bot because they feel “bullied” into buying space in the issue. and so do so because they feel the paper will somehow steer clear of them in a negative light.
you may not like that perception.
you may not believe that perception.
but dear james it is a fact.
and no i’m not going to start naming names because as i’m sure you know there’s enough blacklisting going on in this town.
no need to start another sheet.
but wait, there’s more…
how about a challenge.
send out a few reporters to start talking to the biz. which do not make the bot list or did not advt. in this issue and ask them for an opinion about bot. why didn’t they advt.? what is their opinion of bot? is there a boycott underway? of course nothing may turn up becasue of all the things i mentioned. a vicious circle yes?
but for now just follow the money.
follow the money.
I stand by my comments about your dickishness hiding behind anonymity. I am willing to share my name. Why not yours?
why this fascination w/outing ol’ king marlow the dick and not
similar treatment for sam nombolist, red star and the other cast of rabble?
i hope it is not avoid the advt. vs. journalism issues i’m trying to raise surrounding bot?
i will however give you credit for allowing freedom of speech that’s fer sure.
still despite the coy outing lure, i’ve a hunch if you know how to work your site, you may already know who i am.
it’s really not that hard to figure out.
and once you get it be sure to say hello.
we’re all frogs in the same boiling pot after all.
shalom.
King what whatever your name is.
I write those blurbs. Get real! There is no collusion.
Your barbs might be better pointed at other, slicker publications in town….
You must be a business owner that has never won a BOT.
You have no argument regarding advertisement vs. journalism; you have mere incorrect speculation. And nobody’s bullied into buying ads, for pete’s sake; that’s inane. I control, along with the readers and writers, what goes into BOT, and we don’t sell ads.
If you want to know any specific vote totals, I’d be happy to provide them.
Hey Marlow — I’ve written the blurbs before. Let me fill you in on the process:
* We have a meeting at a restaurant with a big bunch of freelance writers and staff.
* We divy up all of the categories (best beer selection, etc.)
* The writers are likely to go visit the winning locations to get a feel of the place.
* Then we write. 100-200 words, due a month before the whole shebang is made.
The winners in the categories have nothing to do with advertising for the paper.
— Then we write. 100-200 words, due a month before the whole shebang is made.
again i’d like to point out how dangerous/a slick downward spiral this practice is of requiring journalists to write copy that is not “journalistic.”
why not have the readers write this stuff?
or hire a marketing firm?
or even the biz themselves?
it seems to me that when a journalist writes copy that is meant to convey how wonderful a biz is regardless of what their eyes/ears/nose etc. tell them, then it is not journalism.
simple as that.
its what they teach you in high school journalism.
and be honest here folks, that does go on w/bot.
i’ve heard conversations by people who have attended the bot assignment meetings and they’ve talked about not every nomination being worthy of bot.
yet the copy, turned in by so-called journalists, still sings the praises of those places.
something ain’t right with that.
why?
to my gut it seems misleading to the reader because the bot give “legitimacy” to the votes by having “journalists” write the copy.
see where i’m going folks?
the only “real” bit of journalism in the bot, imho, is the section of staff picks since the journalists are writing copy based on their actual observations, opinions, knowledge and so on.
at least i assume they are.
—- If you want to know any specific vote totals, I’d be happy to provide them.
cool. post em for all to see! great idea. let’s inform tucson what bot really means.
—- You must be a business owner that has never won a BOT.
nope. but i have a couple of friends who did win and they sure get tired of the ad reps stopping by every bot w/their hand out. and they do stop by. every time.
—- I control, along with the readers and writers, what goes into BOT, and we don’t sell ads.
ah okay never meant to say you specifically sold the ads. but i’m sure you’re involved w/advt. meetings, talk with the wick folks about $$$ and so on.
if i’m wrong let me know.
but a question: if a reporter comes to you and says: “james,sir, i’ve got to tell ya that this best pizza/burger/ammo shop just dosen’t deserve a nomination because the place really sucks.”
will you scrap it?
will you write how horrible the place it while noting voters chose it as bot?
or will a journalist have to write the glowing happy copy about the biz regardless of what their news sense tell them?
if the later, then you’re in the marketing biz kids.
“why not have the readers write this stuff?” — Why work with unknown people versus writers you know?
or hire a marketing firm? — what?
or even the biz themselves? — and expect something that isn’t just a PR piece? And expect all of these places to write something acceptable that fits the requirements on time?
Basically, to do it right you’re going to need to have set agreements for people to generate these blurbs. Saying “hey you won a BOT award, now write us something well-written and in proper AP style” doesn’t work.
it seems to me that when a journalist writes copy that is meant to convey how wonderful a biz is regardless of what their eyes/ears/nose etc. tell them, then it is not journalism.” — was BOT ever declared journalism? I’m not the right person to be defending BOT, but IMHO why play by this idea the BOT is even within the same sphere as news writing?
to my gut it seems misleading to the reader because the bot give “legitimacy” to the votes by having “journalists” write the copy. — Who are you going to have write all of those entries then? Your above answers have pitfalls in themselves.
lastly–
again i’d like to point out how dangerous/a slick downward spiral this practice is of requiring journalists to write copy that is not “journalistic.”
It isn’t required. At least for freelancers anyway. You either can choose to do it, or opt out.
and lastly,
If someone comes up and says “james,sir, i’ve got to tell ya that this best pizza/burger/ammo shop just dosen’t deserve a nomination because the place really sucks.” —
someone must think its groovy: the readership voted it in. Now, let’s admit: the people vote in all sorts of stupid stuff. I’m not just commenting on BOT, I’m talking about a wide array of American laws voted in by the people. Laws that suck and encourage a nanny state. Laws that don’t do enough for ensuring an equal America. Laws that trample on traditional morality values. Notice the very contradicting statements there: Everyone holds a different view on the result of something that was voted in.
People vote in stupid stuff on all sorts of things, and well, in the case of BOT, the winners get blurbs written about them.
We are reporting what the readers vote on!
We don’t always glam it up – we report! Just like any other reporter does. Yes, sometimes we disagree with the choices, but we are just telling it like the people voted.
There’s something fishy here, KingDick.
How do you have such insider info from both the businesses and the paper? You must be that proverbial fly on the wall or at least soneone who didn’t get hired by the paper. Perhaps we can use the paper to swat the fly.
i’ll try again and keep it short.
bot, text which is one sided and biased, is written and produced by journalists who ask readers to accept their cred. on other journalistic fare when bot is not in play.
therefore, blurs the line between what is news and what is pr/marketing.
as for the so-called voting… out of roughly one million people living in tucson (hell out of the weekly’s circ. of what 50 k?) i’m willing to wager no more than 100 or so people at best decide each category.
of course i could be wrong and i look forward to seeing the numbers published as james noted but if 100 people, some who surely have motives for supporting a biz, are deciding “best of tucson” that certainly seems like false advt.
of course a writer or editor can say “well not my fault if no one votes” or “hey not my problem i just write what the people vote” but my bullshite-o-meter tells me bot is kept alive simply because it brings in $$$ not because it provides an accurate sampling of the best of tucson.
but again, i do believe the staff picks are representative because the journalists are allegedly as non-biased as possible, and with out a profit motive.
therefore they are journalism and should continue.
but of course those picks put journalists in the cross-hairs don’t they?
their picks are based on a sampling of local biz and using that empirical evidence they come up with their choices.
choices readers can trust.
for my money i expect a journalist publication to print copy that was written by a guy/gal who sampled every watering hole in town searching for the prefect gin and tonic and made their decision based on their findings.
but that’s just me.
well not just me. actually quite a few people really. but you get the idea.
one other point. i appreciate the hard work that goes into bot. and all the creative effort. it really is a wonderful example of a an advt. supplement.
perhaps the same effort could be put into a section of equal lenght, resources adn intensity devoted to hard news. you can choose the subject: immigration, economic injustice, war, environment, gender politics, etc.
— You must be that proverbial fly on the wall or at least soneone who didn’t get hired by the paper. Perhaps we can use the paper to swat the fly.
yes. i must be an insider or disgruntled employee because, well, most tucson readers don’t understand this high-falutin news biz you folks practice.
but i must admit i do like this swatting thing. very kinky.
please continue thinking the emperor is fully dressed.
just a shame your own prose has blinded you to what is really going on…
gasp! i’m in marketing not journalism after all!
the horror!
don’t take yourself so seriously.
life is short.
smile.
:^)
Oh now I get it! You lost ad revenue to the Weekly!
Here’s another hint that king marlow, who continues to be an utter coward hiding behind anonymity, is some sort of insider: He’s calling me James, which people who know me know is something I’m not too wild about. Cowards suck.
Don’t take yourself seriously?
That’s rich.
Look in the mirror.
Red Star Issues:
A flower to TW Editor Boegle (and staff, and readers) for publishing BOT. A flower to those, dem, n dat dat raised question as to propriety of things like BOT. But a thorn to those those, dem, n dat for raising a theoretically appropriate question in gutter-sucking, insulting, tedious, crude phrasing. A thorn to TW Editor Boegle for responding in kind to those, dem, n dat. A thorn to dem dat end up react to BOT with ad hominen and being unable to be glad for a one place thing presenting opinion of day to day life in this place dat pueblo that dey can disagree with, discuss, throw away, keep around: mores up to dem dan dey realizn. A flower to Editor Jimmy Boegle et al for doing da dirty job, “proceeding with the proceedings,” as it were, so to speak.
Sincerin always to all you all,
Red Star
— utter coward hiding behind anonymity
i see why you hate the name james.
jimmy is cool and hip. why it’s down right “alternative.”
hell it sounds young. jimmy.
perhaps a -o at teh end: jimmy-o.
that would be way cool.
smoke and mirrors keeps the readers from really knowing what is going on.
this all began with one line of text.
and it blossomed into all this.
so now i know there is something going on.
cuz as you well know where there’s smoke there’s fire.
can’t wait to see those voting numbers published.
not total but each category.
should be very revealing.
i loved your comment about cowards remaining anonymous.
didn’t nixon say that about that deep throat fella?
see, for the most part the weekly rebuttals have are about the “character” of king marlow the dick not helpful jour. 101 high school ethics stuff he keeps pointing out.
if only you could attack the character of the poster rather than the comments he/she is making eh?
how does knowing who i am in any way make my comments valid?
previous no one cared who red star, sprawn etc. were.
so either of two things i see as the motivation: charecter attack or some sort of revenge motive.
did the j. in j. edgar hoover stand for jimmy or james?
i’m not really sure.
but ya know anita hill had something interesting to say today in the op ed of a ny daily re: attacking charecter.
“In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee’s work as “mediocre” or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves — oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral — even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues.
Finally, when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion.”
— Anita Hill 10/2 NYT
keep up the good work kids…
Your argument is way over the top. You act as though we force people to buy ads. So sorry you have to be so hateful over a fun event like BOT.
And the word is spelled character not charecter.
nobody cares who red star is!!!????!!!!??!
If we could understand what the heck you were saying, Red Star, we might care. But as it stands now …
It’s a challenge, yes of course…should it not be? Or, should it be otherwise? But the main thing is Red Star cares and is glad that BOT is out there … proceed
I think Red Star is Nikita Kruchov’s ghost.
+_+_+ Your argument is way over the top. You act as though we force people to buy ads. So sorry you have to be so hateful over a fun event like BOT.
force no.
forcefully persuade yes.
don’t believe me?
contact a few biz that DID NOT advt.
(and a few that did but were not happy about it, but they’ll never admit it to a journalist).
follow the money (or lack of).
there is a boycott in play kiddo.
hateful? again no vanda, just thought i’d shed a little light on the daisy chain love fest that is bot.
it is simply not journalism.
it’s marketing.
and you as a journalist are writing marketing copy.
embrace the truth.
it’ll set you free.
(or at least share it with your readers).
i’m sure the numbers for each category once published will tell the story about what bot really means.
_+_+_+ And the word is spelled character not character.
SNAP!
damn vanda, you got me good.
that’s the kind of witty writing that really makes your copy sparkle.
really top shelf ole’ girl.
Marlow: I never said all the numbers would be published. I don’t have the hours it would take to do that. I said if you wanted to know any specific totals, not all of them, I’d provide them. That’s my last word on this.
— don’t have the hours it would take to do that.
understood. pretty much a dead horse at this point.
but a suggestion for the next bot.
since the weekly has to tally each catagory any way, why not place the number next to each topic?
something like:
best beer: nimbus: 42 votes
Queen Marlow,
What you are stating is not shocking, nor is it controversial. Newspapers are in the business to make money. not just for themselves, but also for the accounts that utilize the service to increase their bottom line. You said you were in Marketing. I have a challenge for you why don’t you gain some marketing stats and ask how many of the businesses benefit from bot and the Weekly in general vs. how many you say “are boycotting”. maybe that marketing degree, that i hope you do have, forced you to take one economic class. If you did then you understand that it is quite simple. this is a matter of cost Vs. benefit. let me dumb this economic lesson down for you.—–Most small businesses in town work on advertising budgets, follow. They must decide whether the BENEFIT of running is worth the COST!! As you can tell with all the ads that ran most liked the risk of the investment. Another aspect you overlooked was the community aspect. this section has been around for over 2 decades from what I understand and local businesses want to feel they are apart of something that carries a sense of tradition , again simply put its good for business. Good for business to the point that some of us actually post publicly that we were winners. oh, and maybe you took a journalism class as well and if you did shame on you because you would understand that it takes a publication like The Tucson Weekly to establish a strong base and readership over time. It must connect with the community to gain distribution and readership numbers through their editorial structure. After that you can begin to build a strong revenue ad side to the business. You do this when businesses start to realize how much they can BENEFIT from being associated with the paper. So nice try you did what you set out to do, you tried to complicate a very simple concept. “Provide a good product, and they will come” why because there something in it for them. Take it from this business owner. I could care less what you think or what anybody else thinks, my ads worked and I made money.
queen lowmar.
i love it.
another snappy comeback.
dick, queen, coward.
this banter directed my way is so hip and happening.
it’s just like being on snl in the late 70s.
this blog really is the alternative to the daily fare!
anyways cleopatra (ya know queen of de’nile. man this witty banter is so cool).
all is understood re. a biz.
keep bot. badger biz owners.
whatever.
how many years did it take to get a circ. of 50k?
if that is connecting w/the community there you go. i guess the other 1 million or so residents in town will wait for something to connect to.
my point… ready?
here it comes once again….
journalists are writing marketing copy.
i’ll say it again.
journalists are writing marketing copy.
and based on the replys from two of the bot writers they simultaneously state it is not meant as journalism (MW:::was BOT ever declared journalism?) and that it is (Vanda:: We don’t always glam it up – we report!).
if the staff is confused (come on vanda, those bot nuggets are 100 percent glam) then what is the reader to make of this?
is it journalism?
no.
it goes beyond reporting numbers (hell the numbers are purposely omitted… WHY?) to writing copy that glorifys the award winners.
the writing is in no way objective journalism.
it isn’t.
even if you as a biz owner love it when they write about how cool your biz is.
it is marketing copy for the reasons i’ve tried over and over to point out.
so gussy it up any way you want but it is marketing text wrapped suggestively in journalism.
now as for your statements:
“I could care less what you think or what anybody else thinks, my ads worked and I made money.”
really?
so you found a way of tallying direct cause and effect?
please share how this was done?
i’m seriously interested in how to quantify that a bot ad drives bizness?
and so fast.
the new edition isn’t even on the stands yet.
did you use coupons? (cool then i can pick up a copy and narrow down which biz you are. who knows maybe we even know each other).
but please share with all the biz owners how you can directly like an ad in the tw to increased bizness.
or is it all part of the whole marketing package we all work so hard on.
you know, community involvment, word of mouth with a product people can’t live w/out, and so on.
ya know this topic is getting to be like beating a dead greyhound. and yet for some reason i still gotta join in…
i’m going to join jimmy (see i’m not such a dick) and join the “That’s my last word on this” club.
you can stick a fork in this greyhound.
it’s done.
(yet more snappy banter. yowza!)
OK, people, some basic points:
Everything you read in TW, or a daily paper, or a magazine, is dumped into what is actually called the “news hole.” That’s the hole, the space left over, once the ads are placed. Sad but true: In journalism, the journalists get the leftovers. Newspapers and magazines are profit-driven businesses, and the typical publisher oversees a “product” intended to make money while delivering enough content (news, features) with enough credibility and appeal to draw readers, who will in the course of perusing the content accidentally look at a few ads.
That said, the publisher is the ONLY person in the operation who has any control over both advertising and the news hole, and in most cases the publisher merely sits in his office playing with spreadsheets and occasionally goes out into the community to make nice with the Rotarians, while the day-to-day decisions are handled by other people–and there is a figurative wall erected between the people who handle ads and the people who handle the news. In my time at the Star and the Weekly, I occasionally had to deal with irate callers who declared they were pulling their ads because of our editorial content; I would politely tell them that this was not my concern, and they should speak to their sales rep. Then I would go back to work, secretly happy that we were stirring up trouble and not pandering to advertisers. As I wrote in one of my TW editor’s notes, “If you want a better restaurant review, run a better restaurant.” One of the ad reps actually pinned that up in her cubicle.
As for Best of Tucson, almost every alt weekly in the country has an annual “Best of” issue. It serves two purposes: It generates one hell of a lot of extra ad revenue (meaning you can continue to read the rag free for another year), and it gets readers deeply involved in what’s in the paper. The voting is done by the readers, and those of us who write the blurbs are reporting on the readers’ choices. (We aren’t even all journalists, which you would know if you saw some of the raw copy that comes in.) What you see in BOT, except for the few clearly labeled staff picks (which are the choice of individual writers who have no contact with the sales reps), is decided by the readers, not the advertisers. Some of us think that some of the readers’ choices are incredibly stupid, but we write blurbs reflecting the readers’ preferences anyway, and we’re under orders (from the editor, not the ad manager) to be positive so as not to insult the readers. One year, long before my tenure, the people in charge of BOT decided to make a staff pick in every category, write that up, and note the readers’ pick as little more than a PS. The readers made a big stink, and the following year’s BOT reverted to the old reader-centered practice. It’s about the readers, not the winners. Frankly, we don’t really care what the businesses think of what we write about them, and in fact every year some business owner gets pissed off about the phrasing in his or her BOT blurb. Too bad.
Some categories draw many votes, and winners may be decided by a wide or a slim margin; we do, I hope you’ve noticed, list runners-up. In less popular categories, like the arts options, there may be fewer than a dozen votes cast, total. Elections–be they BOT popularity contests or political races–are won by those who draw a majority of the votes cast, no matter the size of the voting pool. That’s why we get stuck with some jackasses in local and national office, and that’s why some BOT winners seem puzzling. Fact of life.
I’ve written this post without mocking or insulting any of the other posters. Is everybody happy now?
— I’ve written this post without mocking or insulting any of the other posters. Is everybody happy now?
you know, in honor of the zombie theme, i figured i’d come back from the dead and instead of trying to eat your brain thank you for that honest summary.
makes total sense to me.
Thanks for the sanity, James.
Thumbs up to Mr. Reel.
BOT blurbs might not be the investigative news writing like what’s in Currents, but it is also NOT marketing writing either. Assumptions that the ad people have anything to do with the editorial content of BOT is an accusation of unethical newspapering.