Comments on: Well, OK, That Was Interesting

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:07:25 +0000

Thanks Tyler. There is a nuance in being a columnist/blogger that is lost on some folks.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00:24 +0000

Non-journalists preaching about journalism ethics cracks me up. Again, this is a blog, not a newspaper. I expect opinion in a blog. This is just like I expect to read Steve’s opinion (and I’m sure Steve’s editors and his former journalism professors expect it) in his weekly column in the business section.

Columns and blogs are different animals than news stories, but it seems many people are unable to tell the difference. One of the main reasons I come here is to learn about things that otherwise might not see the light of day in a news story.

In MY opinion, Steve always does a good job of differentiating when he is simply being a journalist vs. when he is giving opinion, but both are surely welcome in a blog.

By: kent

kent — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:02:30 +0000

Steve keep up the good work. You have raised some valid questions. I guess city hall should raise the fine since everyone seems to feel that its okay to break this law…hmmm maybe a fine in the neighborhood of what a speeding ticked is? And a ticket for each illegal placement.

The signs are on public property and if one PR firm can place signs wherever they feel then every garage sale, church, or business could place signs all over the city. It’s bad enough during campaign periods.

By: Larry OKC

Larry OKC — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 04:11:58 +0000

Think they need to plaster them all over City Hall, the Mayor and Council members cars, place the signs in the yards of the Mayor & Council (am sure the Mayor wouldn’t object given this is a health campaign…should go hand in hand with This City is Going on a Diet.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:26:35 +0000

I do also have to wonder what the response would have been if instead of placing these stickers on playgrounds and signs in the park, if instead they were plastered, without permission, in front of a place like the Oklahoma City Museum of Art.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:23:57 +0000

Do I have an opinion as to whether people who go out violating the law using taxpayer dollars to do it should have the spotlight shown on them? You bet.
I appreciate that the folks at VI Marketing are not happy with this coverage, and I thank you for participating in this conversation.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:56:42 +0000

Thanks Jeff Williams. I tend to enjoy Steve’s posts usually, but this post (and others recently) have started showing me that Steve definitely has an opinion and is no longer reporting from a journalistic side of things, but more or less is going after people with head-strong intentions of his own. As you state Jeff, respectful journalistic practice has been thrown aside in this situation.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:12:19 +0000

if it wasn’t for illegal yard signs, i’d have no idea where to get firewood. let’s not crack this whip too hard now.

By: Jeff Williams

Jeff Williams — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:23:05 +0000

Mr Lackmeyer:
I don’t have a dog in this fight. The signs do not bother nor necessarily inspire me. Your comments however conflict often. I don’t know you but I do know that in order for you to be successful with this blog you have to “stir the stew”. In this case I would invite you to answer a couple of questions phrased similar to the ones that you previously requested the people (Mr. Berney) at VI to respond to. These are my questions and your answers are greatly appreciated. I ask that you limit your answers to an either/or answer (just as you prefaced your questions to Mr. Berney):

First I quote you Mr. Lackmeyer
“Personally, I’ve attached to this topic for one reason: I love the irony of a state agency using taxpayer money to put up illegal signs that more taxpayer money will be used to remove. That’s the ultimate man-bites-dog story. Sorry if you folks at VI don’t appreciate this. But it does get one to asking “What in the world were you thinking?” And now we know.”

My questions:
1. Do you believe that, as you state above, the state agency used taxpayer money to put up illegal signs to cause more tax money to be spent to collect them as you state OR do you believe that the state agency spent this money to bring awareness to significant public health issues? Specifically what was their intent?

Remember either/or answers only please.
ANSWER: I don’t know what to believe. I believe Mr. Berney when he indicates they knew what they were doing was against the law, but he didn’t see it as a serious violation. VI Marketing was contracted by the health department and on their behalf put out illegal yard signs.

2. Did you receive an answer from Mr. Berney regarding his firm’s willingness to collect the signs post campaign or did you jump to the conclusion that Mr. Berney planned to leave the signs in place thus leaving the task to the city to clean up?

ANSWER: Mr. Berney did not indicate any willingness to pick up the signs before the campaign ends.

Like you, I find irony in this discussion as well. It seems ironic that you so comfortably sit on the fence and continue to make leading statements and quasi accusations without substantiating your claims. Did Mr. Berney’s firm show bad judgment in terms of their response to your inquisition? Perhaps. Are you stepping way over the line in terms of respectful journalistic practice? Definitely.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:25:27 +0000

Seriously, how about fining the politicians whose signs litter the sides of streets and in neighborhoods. If this is going to be bitched about, make sure we recoup the fines that pay for the cleanup? I liked the post Larry OKC.