![[text]](http://ilind.net/oldkine_images/SOS_button.jpg)
Former Honolulu Star-Bulletin photo editor Dean Sensui dredged up this bit of media memorabilia dating back to the legal-political battle in the 1999-2001 period to block Gannett’s plan to pay the owner of the Bulletin to simply close the newspaper.
In an email, Dean commented on the irony of the “no monopoly” message.
The impulse to save the Star-Bulletin from extinction was, after all, driven in part by a reaction to Gannett’s corporate transformation of the news, and its preference for newspapers in markets without direct competition.
I found this among my collection of stuff.
Interesting how it says “No Monopoly”, yet this is what we have today. Courtesy of the very entity that opposed it.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How can the Star Advertiser hold a “newspaper monopoly” when it is not even a real newspaper? The closest to a monopoly on news would be Civil Beat.
A classic example of “damned if you do….damned if you don’t”. Basically, you off the chart libs just can’t understand what it is you want. For all the years that Gannett was in town everyone slammed the Advertiser with regularity. Remember “Mc Paper” gripes?? Bitch and moan.
I attempted to discern whatever point you were trying to make, but you lost me at “off the chart libs” (sic). “Hurr, durr.”
I know what I want. And I ain’t getting it.
Ian,
Check out the entry today in The Gannett Blog site. Jim askes the question about how many pages are in the paper today. The responses might make you pause on the criticism you give out to the SA.
Maybe in lieu of “NO” it’s now (k)no(w) or “KNOW MONOPOLY?”
Doesn’t it seem that our Fourth Estate is direly in need of fairness regulation and/or life support?
To be fair, Save Our Star-Bulletin was a group of community members and other interested parties, not the Star-Bulletin itself. So today’s situation wasn’t really created by “the very entity that opposed it.”
That technicality aside, my former coworker Dean’s point is well taken. I’ve still got a bunch of SOS knick-knacks, including T-shirts. I can hardly stand to look at them, though.
Please note that monopoly of news in Hawaii is not enough. They want to censor/contain free press and bloggers like you too.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/01/11/14479-judiciary-make-reporters-shield-law-permanent/
One of the problems I have with the Star-Advertiser is their failure to pursue many stories that, if reported honestly, would necessarily result in the rail project being cast in a negative light before the public. In my opinion, this so-called newspaper is reporting only enough unflattering news on the project to afford themselves a means to deny their bias.
Here is a selection of quotes from a Dec. 27, 2011 letter to the FTA from the city of Honolulu (through the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation) that the Star-Advertiser, as far as I know, has failed to detail. The city is requesting that a “Letter of No Prejudice” (LONP) be granted to Honolulu that would allow the city to begin actual construction on the rail project ahead of possibly being awarded a full funding grant agreement at a later time.
In the letter to the FTA, the city explains how desperately the early construction start is needed and what the consequences of not being allowed to start early would mean to the rail project.
http://www.slideshare.net/civilbeat/hart-requests-fta-lonp
*BEGIN QUOTES*
“Authorization of LONP 2 is critical to avoid impact to the project budget and contingency.”
” LONP 2 is necessary to continue forward progress on the active DB contracts, and minimize impact to the future FHSG construction contract in order to maintain the overall viability of the Project budget…”
“The consequences of LONP 2 not being approved will have serious impacts to the overall project budget,”
“HART analysis indicates that the total delay impact could be at least $110.2 million”
“Each month, the cost of delaying the start of the LONP 2 activities is approximately $9.2 million. This essentially is the cost of the contractors remaining mobilized and not working, as well as the escalation in the cost of materials.”
“The Project’s budget will be adversely affected further if the limited construction work contemplated by this LONP 2 request does not start until after the anticipated FFGA date of September 2012 because delaying the active DB contractors would result in demobilization and remobilization costs. The $110.2 million delay impact in Figure 2 does not include costs of demobilization and remobilization or potential delay costs as a result of the sequencing and interface with other contracts becoming compressed.”
“impact to Project Scope if LONP 2 Is Not Approved
Significant impacts to the project budget and contingency may result in the need to redefine the Project’s scope at some future time.”
“Should this LONP 2 request not be approved, the work would require overlapping construction along major highways and arterials creating additional major traffic disruptions and putting public safety at risk along the already congested corridor.”
*END QUOTES*
Apparently, as far as the Star-Advertiser is concerned, the potential for “major traffic disruptions and putting public safety at risk along the already congested corridor” is not newsworthy.
What does seem to be newsworthy to the Star-Advertiser are repeated mentions in their coverage of rail transit that construction contracts for early phases of construction have come in below city estimates. What the Star-Advertiser does not seem to find newsworthy is that anticipated “savings to the taxpayer” from those below city estimate construction bids could be more than erased by “delay costs as a result of the sequencing and interface with other contracts becoming compressed,” costs of demobilization and remobilization,” and “the escalation in the cost of materials.”
Also, what could “need to redefine the Project’s scope” possibly entail? Would failure to receive a letter of no prejudice from the FTA result in the city turning this into the multibillion dollar railway to Middle Street project?
And even if the FTA does grant the Letter of No Prejudice allowing an early construction start, what if there are later delays from other causes? The current lawsuit? Future discovery of iwi along rail’s path? Evidently, this rail project is far more vulnerable to the consequences of delay than the city has let on to the public in the past — consequences that, again, in the city’s own unreported words to the FTA, include “putting public safety at risk.”
Thank you for this. It deserves a whole article by itself for the points you raise.
I think it’s only a matter of time before the Hawaii Tribune Herald and the West Hawaii Today merge since they are already both owned by Stephens Media and already pretty much print similar content as it is.
A sort of Big Island Today (after USA Today).
I don’t know if they’ll merge soon, because WHT (est. 1968) and HTH each have huge regions to cover.
Which paper do you think does a better overall job in news coverage?
They won’t merge as long as there are unions representing employees at the Tribune Herald.
Ben, the number of pages, and the news hole on most pages, is determined by the amount of ads running that day. Paper size, # of pages, is rarely determined by number of stories. So smaller papers around the country simply reflects the financial state of newspapers today. Which is not good.
True thing. Most newspapers have a ratio of advertising to news that they try to maintain over time in order to achieve profit goals.