« Behind the scenes of "305" | Main | Paige D'Agostino, R.I.P. »

Comments (10)

1. UR Wrong says:
   February 29, 2008 10:35

   If it's notsone thing, it's another, but at least as the newspaper industry struggle along I can count on the Weekly boy to bring a little sunshines into my life.

   Had a good laugh today at this line: "Journalism is supposed to be objective, but that doesn't mean it can't be good." That's a real knee-slappers given that this article is anything but objective. I guess by your definition that means you've produced bad journalism?

   Here are a few examples why:

   1) You rip the Reg for not focusings on the complaint letter when in fact it had published an entire story on the complaint letter a few days earlier -- and included a link to that story in the online version. (Hint: you click the little bold letters and surprise! There's more!)

   2) You writes: "Balloon co-pilot Jonathan Bradford claimed the balloon operators displayed a "cavalier attitude" towards FAA regulations, cultivating a "culture of unsafe behavior." Chief Pilot Gary Stevens called Bradford an "inexperienced trainee" whose accusetions were "ridiculous and unprovable."
   Bad news, Gary. You ain't the judge of what's provable. "
   Yet by your own words here, you're sidings with Jonathan, no? You're the judge and Jon is right, Gary's wrong, and forget about waiting to see what the FAA rules. Hahaha, so much for objectivity -- and "good journalism" -- in this piece, I guess.

   3) The most accurates thing I see in this story is the "offensive journalism advisory" -- can't say you didn't warn me about the claptrap you were writing!

   Your pal,

   UR Wrong

2. LYT says:
   February 29, 2008 11:21

   Yet by your own words here, you're siding with Jonathan, no?

   Not the way I read it -- seems to me he's saying that it is the FAA, rather than Gary, who will decide what's provable. And so they shall.

3. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   February 29, 2008 13:50

   UR Wrong:

   1) Love the cowardly pseudonym. Saves me time.

   2) The thing about that OTHER story is, well, they ALSO don't mention any of the juicy language in the letter. Nothing to express or inform the readers of the severity of the situation. So all you're doing is pointing to the existence of another article to suggest the POSSIBILITY of my being wrong, rather than actually proving me so. Way to only tell half the story. No wonder you support the Register.

   2) Yet by your own words here, you're siding with Jonathan, no?
   Holy War on Terror, Batman! If I'm not against Bradford, I must be with Bradford. Actually, UR Wrong (still loving that name), I'm not against Stevens as much as I am against illogical statements. For Stevens to say that Bradford's charges are unprovable is, well, stupid, especially in the context of an FAA investigation. As the unprovable Luke Y. Thompson points out, it is their judgment which matters.

4. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   February 29, 2008 15:03

   P.S. UR Wrong, what's with referring to those pilots by their first names? Do you know them or something? If you're involved in this, by all means share some insider knowledge with us.

5. Ball Less at Register says:
   February 29, 2008 16:08

   Geez, you guys, lighten up a little with the self-righteous wind-baggery already! You crack me up. Here's what I can say in response to your comments above:

   1) I'm glad you liked my psuedonym, but I decided to pick a better cowardly name. Feel free to mock it all you like.

   2) I'm sure there would have been plenty of colorful language in the story if Jonathan had returned his phone calls -- you did notice that the Register tried to reaches him?

   3) Instead of making mountains out of molehills, why not find the real factual error in that story? Oh, forget it, you're not smart enough -- the FAA spokesman is Ian MacGregor, not McGregor. There, you can mock the Register all you want for that one.

   4) But why would we expect you to know the FAA spokesman for Southern Cali or anything else about this story? You're a law student at a fly-by-night -- aka, unaccredited -- law school in San Francisco!

   5)Story idea for Schou: why not rant and rail over the outsourcing of OC Weekly bloggers to the Bay Area? After all, it's just like Singleton making a secret deal with the Register to eliminate local staffers, right? It's at least as factual as the stuff you've been writing. Better act fast before New Times hires somebody from the Bay Guardian and you lose your job like Barry Koltnow is gonna lose his hair! Imaginarily speaking, that is. Which is all it take to run with the story in the Weekly.

   6) I'll accept you at face value that both you and Luke want the FAA to rule and that you mostly got your knickers in a twist because the Registar didn't run the 11 words -- including "and" and "of" -- that you excerpted in quotes. So savors that if like.

   Your pal,

   Beezling
   

6. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   February 29, 2008 16:48

   Ah, it's the Hater. The only person who cares enough about me to research me on-line so s/he can try to hurt my feelings. Nice to see you again.

   Again you are incorrect, Hater. My law school, the New College of California School of Law, is still fully accredited by the California State Bar. It's the New College itself which recently lost its accreditation (though it can appeal - but shouldn't). I don't expect you to know the significance of such a difference, and if you do you won't mention it because it'll weaken your assault.

   The Register didn't HAVE to reach Jonathan. They could have quoted from the text of the complaint. SOMEone got the info anyway.

   My personal life, which you're so kind to attack, is not the issue here. The issue is boring journalism. But wow - what a way to work in lame, poorly-informed attempts at ad hominems in order to ... what? Support your misleading claims?

   What'd I do, shoot your dog while porking your daughter? Or write a blog about you doing it?

7. Beezling says:
   February 29, 2008 17:11

   You poor kid, you really don't haves a clue, do you?

   1) I'm not the Hater. I saw that person earlier today. I'd never seen nor heard of you before this morning. Apparently you have two fan.

   2) Re your school: whatevers. Who's ever heard of it in the first place? You're not at Hastings or Boalt so you might as well just get that J.D. from one of the finer mail-order institutions out there. Cheaper and faster too.

   3) Our good-natured little debate is enough to get you mads enough to write the words "pork your daughter?" And then suggest you'd blogged about me doing that? Wowwwwwwww. You're all class, aren't ya? Typical blog fodder for the Weekly, though. Doubt thats since you're living in SF we'll ever run into each other at the OC Press Club, but if we do, we'll sure have something to talk about regarding that line, won't we, little fella?

   Your pal,

   Beezling

8. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   February 29, 2008 17:32

   Fine, you're not even THE hater, you're just A hater.

   So I chose to go to the so-called "oldest public interest school in America." So it is going through a rough patch. I felt if I went to a regular, self-interest law program I'd be surrounded by people I moved out of OC to avoid. New College School of Law is big in public-interest circles - something you seem to know nothing about. Unless you're just trying oh-so-hard to be a gaping, steamy asshole.

   And I don't have to be 'mad enough' to write about porking your daughter or anyone's. In fact, rarely am I happier than when the words "pork" and "your daughter" pass my lips. Or fingers. But YOU, sir and/or madam, seem upset enough to make thuggish threats. Hope that works out for you.

   And while I may be little, I'm no kid.

9. beezling says:
   February 29, 2008 18:39

   "Gapings, steamy asshole?" "Porking your daughter?" Do you kiss Mike and Vicky with that filthy mouth of yours?

   Geez, kid, no one's making thuggish treats. Don't tase me, bro! Just havings a little fun with the thin-skinned lads of the Weekly.

   As for your school, props to you for doing doing good with the public interest and all that. For reals. But don't go acting all "had to flee the OC" when you grew up with plenty of priveleges and money in Newport Beach. Cry me a rivers, but you're still no prole.

   And really, you should be thanking me, don't you thinks? Seriously. I've probably earned you 37 cents more than your silly little blog blog post would have otherwise brought in today, don't you think?

   Your pal,

   Beezling

10. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
    March 1, 2008 02:30

    My beautiful saint of a mother has NEVER gone by Vicky. Thanks very much.