consultants are sandburs

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Published by ABC Newspapers, online about a month ago, "Nowthen sticks with UnionHerald for public notices -- By Mandy Moran Froemming February 19, 2015 at 6:00 am"

This link. This excerpt:

The City Council was slated to designate its legal publication in January, but tabled the decision after members wanted more information about the bids and services provided by the Anoka County UnionHerald and the Anoka County Record.

Nowthen’s council discussed the issue at a Feb. 5 work session followed by the vote at its Feb. 10 regular meeting where the UnionHerald was approved as the legal newspaper on a 3-2 vote. An earlier motion made by Council Member Mary Rainville to make the Record Nowthen’s legal newspaper failed.

[...] Mayor Jeff Pilon and Rainville voted against the motion to go with the UnionHerald, which was supported by Council Members Randy Bettinger, Jim Scheffler and Paul Reighard.

Both Rainville and Pilon favored the Record’s bid because it was the cheaper option.

[...] Rainville said she separated the issue of the “news worthiness” of the paper from the issue of legal notice publication.

[...] Rainville said she made her decision based on the estimated printing costs of $3,500 for the UnionHerald compared to $350 in the Record.

Bettinger supported keeping the notices in the UnionHerald for a few reasons.

“Legal notices have always been there and people know where to find them,” Bettinger said.

He also believes the UnionHerald reaches more Nowthen residents than the Record.

Following the work session, Record publisher John Kysylyczyn offered to run Nowthen’s public notices free of charge.

In a letter to the council, Kysylyczn said he was doing this, “because my business places principal [sic] over profit.”

He also wrote that he would “cut the city a check for $250” to place ads in the city’s newsletters.

The prospect of free notices wasn’t enough for Bettinger to change his mind. He has concerns about the quality of the news content in the Anoka County Record.

Well, confusing the words "principle" and "principal" is not a sign of total ignorance, while it is guessed the quote published by ABC Newspapers was accurate - i.e., the mistake in wording was within the letter being quoted.

In any event, readers are requested to defend, if they can, the newswortiness of this, as actual and true journalism of any merit or quality, and not a sham or nearly so. Some things are subjective, while others might be held to some measure of minimal community standards and expectations - even when subjective.

If it were me as "editor," I would be ashamed to call that a "newspaper" edition. I would not set the bar so low.

If John K. is handing out freebs, our County Board sure screwed up BIG TIME by not bargining hard enough with the camp John K. represents.

I bet the County Board ignored the possibility of freebs, of "principal [sic] over profits," in deciding what they did. It surely appears they might have gotten us citizens a better deal if they were intent on not going with the true, actual, ink-and-newsprint newspaper.

They've 'splaining to do. BIG TIME 'splaining.

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Links of interest, the FTC on, "Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing," here; Wikipedia on "Predatory pricing," here.

Is predatory pricing "principal [sic] over profits?" Is newspaper publishing an Alice in Wonderland business, or not a business at all but a political thrust? What's a newspaper if it is not a true business, and what business would give its cash flow away?

There are very troubling dimensions about Harold Hamilton pulling or suspending his "PAID ADVERTISEMENT" and John K. getting toward predation in suggesting zero pricing - not to benefit himself, but to harm a competitor.

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
On the "if it was me as editor, I'd be ashamed" front, this and this (the last link reporting county board action of Mar. 10), are not news for Mar. 13, and/or Mar. 20 publishing? 

They are newsworthy events for the ink and newsprint people, but what, troublesome developments to Taxpayeer League thinkers? Or is it mere neglect and not editorial prerogative being exercised, of Record?

No comments: