I was stunned by how little legwork the N-G did to cover any of the candidates in the Urbana mayoral campaign. From my own perspective, I happen to know they have a lot of stuff about me in their own files.*
 
They did seem to misunderstand, or mischaracterize the basic facts and ideas. They didn’t cover 80% of the formal debates, at all.
 
The worst thing I had to overcome was their frequent characterization of me as a “non-practicing attorney.” (They’ve never referred to Tim Johnson or Mark Kirk this way, to my knowledge.) On the front porches of Urbana, more than one person questioned whether I’d been disbarred.
 
Jim Dey said he was surprised to see me at the Urbana-Central football game, fall of 2009. I’ll never forget what he said: “I thought you’d be home reading Dickens.”
 
I played football for the Urbana Tigers. It’s right there, in the archives of the N-G. I even scored!
 
Did Jim Dey not know I’m a sports reporter? My sports reportage has been acknowldged, even trumpted (thanks Paul) in his own newspaper.
 
<span>(The only SP reference came from a Mike Monson column. I “occasionally” wrote for the “blog” he said, shortly before going to work full-time for the incumbent candidate.)</span>


Worse, does Dey think I’m persuaded by 19th Century socialist propaganda? If so, I wouldn’t mind him expressing that view to my fellows in the SP community, who regard me as a brazen right winger.  
 
But is that the message he took from my campaign? Progressive socialism? How could that possibly be? (I look nothing like Durl.)
 
I wonder whether the N-G looked at poll numbers (in early 2009) and chose not to waste resources on the Urbana race. It’s not doing the community much service, but it doesn’t alienate the remaining subscribers.
 
*To his credit, John Foreman recalled taking classes with both of my parents. He seemed to know who I was!  So kudos to him for doing his homework. 

This seems much ado about nothing. To be frank, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in NG when it comes to covering events, news, or items of interest in Champaign or Urbana. If a reporter truly wanted to interview the new mayor, they would exhaust all options and make the arrangements necessary according to the interviewee’s schedule. This seems to be more like “let’s make this guy look bad before he’s even on the job.” I’ve known many journalism students and college radio broadcasters with more professionalism and flexibility than this.
 
I also think Rob is right, specifically in the lack of coverage for Urbana. Unless a body turns up or someone really interesting appears at Krannert center, they seem disinterested.

Considering that Gerard used to write for the N-G, I find this all to be worth a roll of the eyes. Typical small-town BS and posturing—on both sides. But the N-G shouldn’t send an ultimatum request—submit to our one-hour video interview, take it or leave it—as that’s just ridiculous. For the daily paper to not want to get the incoming mayor on record is foolish.

Also worth a roll of the eyes: Corkery explained, “I think this all stems from the way we are approaching the web, which our own internal data show that people turn to websites for breaking news primarily, so that’s the way we’re approaching our website. And then the longer pieces, whether they’re news or opinion or whatever, those appear in print.”

Once again, the N-G is proving it has no clue about the world wide web. Either that, or it’s willing to put forth any lame excuse in order to continue to further its agenda. Whatever. At this rate, the paper will be dead soon enough.

Stuart, they want the video so they can put it on their website, which people primarily turn to “for breaking news”. Get it?

Perhaps if the News Gazette’s website design wasn’t virtually an exact replica of their web page in 1994, people would turn to it for coverage. The severity with which they are out of touch also shows in the quote above about “breaking news”. The fact of the matter is that people turn to the web for ALL news, particularly in a city or town as wired and connected as most of Champaign and Urbana are.

Addendum - Not an exact replica, but just about as functional. Which is to say, not much at all.

I was surprised by the NG article calling out Gerard for not granting them an interview.  Talk about drawing attention to your impotence. 
It’s pretty obvious what Gerard is doing, and it makes political sense.  What’s really fun is how he’s doing it with such good humor. But beneath that there are the fundamentals of the campaign and his victory.  
The NG was aggressive in its attempts to derail Gerard, and no one was the least surprised by that.  To think that the paper’s ruling cabal’s agenda has changed since the election is foolish.  If you can say one thing about the NG its that it is pretty consistent in its loyalties.
You can play nice with them or tell them to piss off (but with a polite smile). Either option will get you the same response from them more or less.  It’s important to look at that map Anna Barnes constructed again, and then look at the recent article in the NG (by Dey?, I can’t remember), about the political action in northeast Champaign that got Gerard elected.  When contacted by the NG, some of the principals in that area bluntly told the NG, “we have nothing to talk about with you.”  They recognize the NG for what it is, and what it does to that community.
You know, when people in local politics, and at the largest employer (and the reason CU is CU) refuse to return your phone calls, maybe you should take a hint.  You are steadily making yourself even more irrelevant to most of Champaign-Urbana. 
There is something unusual happening here.  Rob’s observations about the Urbana election are very interesting.  Even given the NGs long history of disdain for Urbana, something else seems to be going on.  Note that when the Urbana beat reporter took an extended leave (according to Anna, I’m not sure what the whole story is), the NG did not fill that post, but extended the Champaign reporter’s beat.  At the same time they have significantly expanded their Danville coverage to build circulation in Vermilion Co. and I presume in the long run to drive the Commercial Appeal out of business like they did the Courier (which was always more popular in Urbana).  It looks like they now have three people in Danville and one half a person in Urbana.  
Well, there’s a lot to speculate on here; some pretty obvious stuff, some less so.  But could it be that they are basically writing off the central community in service to promoting their extreme political ideology, which alienates much of that community?  I dunno, but it wouldn’t surprise me.  I can’t imagine them significantly growing circulation in the twin cities with the kind of product they put out now.  But, if the letters to editor page is any indication, it sells well in the outlying areas.  
I’ve always found it amusing when the NG endorses some Republican candidate out in Mahomet or somewhere because he or she “better reflects” the outlook of that area, despite the opponent being equally good or better (I’m looking at you Eric Thorsland).  Given the pretty steady vote percentages there, that may make sense.  But why not apply the same standard to the NG itself in how it presents itself to it’s core historical area?  Well, institutions are slow to change, and the tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living, or something like that.  When oh when is some enterprising scholar at the U of I going to write a good history of the NG?  It would be a helluva story and highly entertaining. 
Enough.  But a couple of other notes.  I particularly enjoyed Rob’s tales of his encounter with Dey.  What a maroon!
And Corkery’s take on the web page seems to be pretty much nonsense.  John Beck has already laid out why their web remains highly restricted.  Doug H. hits the nail on the head.
 
 

@Random angry person hiding behind anonymity - Actually, my comment does speak to a number of important points, including the overarching truth that the N-G is drastically, almost criminally behind the times. One thing leads to another. They are out of touch in oh so many ways, and they are unprofessional to a fault.
 
But then, I suspect you’re probably ok with that judging by the charm and eloquence of your commentary here. I’m sure this internet thing is just a fad anyway.

@Mertz - *Applause.

Thank you, Professor Brown (no relation, in case anyone’s wondering) for taking the time to clarify and comment on the site.

Let’s clarify: Tom Kacich’s daughter-in-law works for the CVB, and is massively qualified to be in her position. She is thoughtful, intelligent, and her husband, Tom’s son, is about the most humble and warm fella you’d ever meet.
 
Having known the Kacich’s since my youth — if I have a say in the matter — they are completely upstanding and totally kind. Tom’s political leanings may be incongruent with my own at times, but the man knows his way around a typewriter, and credit is given where credit is due: he does as good a job as any scribbler in any ol’ city across this land.
 
Try to leave things like Tom Kacich’s daughter-in-law out of this particular discussion. Sure — she is a friend of mine, but seriously — that has NO place in this discussion in my estimation.
 
Carry on.

Prof. Brown now knows the derision and umbrage of being publicly  misquoted.
 
Insult to injury; he’s now learned the perils of SP’s rich text formatting.
 
Span>

Indeed.
 
In the comments section of the (above linked) N-G article, I theorize Don’s reasoning for keeping some control over his own communication. (It may not be Don’e reasoning.)
 
But the N-G and (by increased leaps, bounds, and exponential algorithms) the Daily Illini can be amazingly relativistic about interpreting/attributing an interviewee’s statements. It’s best to err on the side that preserves accuracy and accountability.
 
I frequently find myself, as a “journalist,” standing next to Loren Tate and Paul Klee, interviewing athletes and coaches.  Paul uses a handheld voice recorder. Tate takes shorthand. I have to say I’m (also) stunned by the accuracy of Tate’s quotes, despite his methods.
 
There’s a reason America now speaks through its communications officer, or outside PR firm.  And that reason is callous attribution.

When I read that the N-G did a “hatchet job” on Don Gerard, I generally disagree.  When it was down to the wire, the story that really stood out to me was this (http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2011-03-30/mayoral-candidates-trade-accusations-over-donations.html).  I’m convinced this article was what infuriated the Schweighart campaign and started a chain of events that led to the torching of Farrens (http://www.smilepolitely.com/splog/marj_williams_torches_anti-schweighart_restaurant/).  
There is no denying that the Schweighart campaign had two attack priorities during the campaign (1) Craig Walker and (2) Joes Brewery.   Everyone knew that Joes Brewery was backing the Gerard campaign, but nobody could make a big deal out of it until the filings were made public.  In the days just before the election, there were more people talking about Clark Dietz and the silly comments in that N-G article than Joe’s Brewery.  What was supposed to be a big deal was diluted as “trading accusations.”   
Some are suggesting that the N-G did a hatchet job on Don Gerard.  I believe the way they reported the Clark Dietz/Joes Brewery story (and the aftermath that ensued) significantly contributed to the Gerard election victory.   When you are talking just over a 200 vote margin, those types of things can be a game-changer.  At the very least, that article created some last-minute momentum that favored Gerard.  It was enough to change my prediction from Schweighart to Gerard the day before the election.  If the N-G was doing a hatchet job, they could have made a much bigger deal out of the Joes Brewery support.  Instead, it threw the Schweighart campaign off balance so much that it was almost entertaining to watch.  
I agree that the communication priorities of the N-G and the Schweighart aligned very nicely.   Coincidence?  Maybe.  But to paint the N-G so negatively seems like overkill.    
 

@Eric B. - I’ll admit to my own ignorance with regard to the Joe’s Brewery issue. Can anyone provide a snapshot synopsis of what the issue (or perceived issue) was? Was it simply because all the bars in and around campus are expected to support Jerry (since he was the mayor and liquor commissioner at the same time)?
 
I’d only heard this mentioned or brought up once before the election, but I’m genuinely curious as to what the issue was.

@Jason: It was a twofold deal: first, since the mayor is also the liquor commissioner (city council dissolved the liquor commission in 2010 with the mayor’s full support), it could be seen as untoward for a bar owner whose establishment has a less-than-stellar record for compliance to be the largest funder of the mayor’s campaign; second, the Gerard campaign missed a deadline with regards to reporting contributions over $1,000 on the contributions from Mr. Larson.

Thanks Joel. Appreciate the clarification. It has always seemed a conflict to me, in so far as Champaign is concerned, that the Mayor is also the Liquor Commissioner. I know the Champaign system doesn’t offer the Mayor the same level of power as other towns and cities, but with the campus bar traffic, having decisive power over liquor licensing and fines offers more than enough leverage. Perhaps too much.

“I know the Champaign system doesn’t offer the Mayor the same level of power as other towns and cities, but with the campus bar traffic, having decisive power over liquor licensing and fines offers more than enough leverage. Perhaps too much.”
What’s scary to me is the thought of a mayor with so much unilateral power who <span>demonstrates a complete disregard for facts and logic to the extreme.  That is why I disagree with the N-G’s take that the Obama birther controversy “has no bearing to perform his mayoral duties.”  The liquor commissioner has full discretion and you need someone who is fair and balanced when making enforcement decisions.   The birther comments and subsequent handling of those comments raised some serious red flags for me.  There is nothing “ceremonial” about the role of liquor commissioner.   Ingoring facts was problematic:</span>
<span>http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/miscellaneous/2009-12-08/11-bars-accused-happy-hour-violations.html</span>
<span>The result of this bar scramble incident was the bars and the city spending $10s of thousands of dollars and an independent ruling in favor of the bars.  If safety was truly the concern, and not a crusade against campus bars, the liquor commissioner could have made a phone call.   I don’t see any follow-up in the “more like this” links on the N-G website, but maybe the paper did one in the print version and I missed it.  There were some very creative interpretations of the law to serve an agenda.   </span>
Hopefully, this gives you some good background.  
 

“Gotcha” is better suited to campaigns and candidates AnonJon. Governance is not the same as politics.

Lookie, Sam Harris has devoted a column to The Perils of Print Interviews. How timely.
 
On a related note, we met Sam Harris last month, and bought him a beer.