The Courier-Journal may be ignoring Tyler Allen’s candidacy to be Louisville’s next mayor, but the reality-based community is not. The former “paper of record” and Allen’s opponents should take note: he’s got a broad support base that should not be underestimated – especially not in a crowded primary. Even if he turns out to be unpopular, his candidacy has the potential to swing the race toward one candidate or another and that should wake tons of people up.
CLICK TO VISIT TYLER’S SITE
Here’s a sample of the folks who support him:
Tina Ward-Pugh:
34 responses so far ↓
1 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm
For the record, the Courier-Journal is not “ignoring” Tyler Allen’s mayoral bid. Joe Gerth did a story on him entering the race last week. The paper has been consistent in the policy of giving each candidate one story on the Metro cover as they declare. We handled Jim King, Chris Thieneman, Hal Heiner and all the rest exactly the same way. We do the story when we get the information confirmed. In the cases of King, Heiner and Allen, that was before each held a press conference to officially announce. Tyler got the same treatment as everyone else.
Dan Klepal, metro government reporter.
2 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Here’s the deal: One day the C-J gives Heiner huge coverage and said his announcement was the next day, then on Tuesday, gives Tyler almost nothing, and no mention of his announcement on the next day. That’s wrong.
The coverage at the time of Tyler’s letter of intent doesn’t count, in my humble opinion.
3 fair treatment for foil hats // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Yeah??? So where’s the story on Connie Marshall??? Huh???
4 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Interesting. I’ve never heard of newspaper articles that “don’t count.”
I thought they all counted, particularly when we are strictly abiding by a policy of only giving the candidates one story for their announcements.
And just so we’re all dealing with facts and not feelings or impressions:
The Sept. 10 story on Hal Heiner (written by me) was 14 paragraphs long and appeared on the metro cover.
The Sept. 14 story on Allen (by Gerth) was 13 paragraphs long and appeared on the metro cover.
Therefore, I think it is incredible to say that Heiner got “huge coverage” and Allen got “almost nothing.” It’s just not true.
Also, when Gerth wrote the story on Tyler, he hadn’t scheduled his press conference, or at least didn’t mention it to us if he had.
Again, each candidate gets one story to declare their candidacy. And I can’t imagine why mentioning (or not) a press conference for the candidates “official” announcement matters or is prejudicial either way.
Dan Klepal, metro government reporter.
5 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I’m sorry for my not very artful turn of phrase. When I said “don’t count” — I meant in the sense that the earlier Allen coverage wasn’t coordinated/timed to the actual announcement, which was yesterday. All campaigns certainly enjoy the most complete coverage, but there are stages to a campaign, and in the case of Tyler Allen, the announcement was yesterday, not days before.
As for the 9/14 coverage of Allen, I don’t see it on the website, and I’m looking through the history. Whereas, the full 9/14 article for Heiner is on the website. Hello?
I guess we’ll have to disagree with what is prejudicial and what is not. The C-J had information on Tuesday that the announcement was on Wednesday, and didn’t include this in the 2-paragraph 9/15 article. Isn’t this fact?
By the way, I am speaking as an individual on this matter, and haven’t been directed by anyone to do it.
6 fair treatment for foil hats // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Again…wheeeeeeeere’s Connie????
7 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009909090415
Above is the link to the Tyler Allen declaration story. So it is obviously on the web site. Took me about 8 seconds to find it.
DK
8 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm
This spin is nice and all, but, uh, the Courier-Journal didn’t even bother to show up to Tyler’s announcement.
9 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Dan, that is the September 9 article. 9th.
Let me repeat the facts.
The day before Heiner’s announcement, you release a detailed article about Heiner and say he’s announcing the next day.
The day before Allen’s announcement, you give him two paragraphs with never a hint as to the announcement the next day. Not even an update if you got the info too late to include. Remember: this is September 2009, and the WEB.
And then, as Jake points out, the C-J didn’t appear at the press conference.
Now, whether the C-J covers all the announcement press conferences is one thing (and I think this makes no sense, but it’s your news business, not mine).
But the suggestion of even-handedness in the face of the above facts is quite the stretch.
10 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It’s like that time the Courier-Journal sent an (ahem) unnamed reporter to cover Brad Cummings’ presser about King Jerry… and then didn’t write a darn thing about what Brad said.
11 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:31 pm
That is correct, Jake. We didn’t go to Tyler’s press conference. Nor did we go to Jim King’s press conference. Nor did we go to Hal Heiner press conference. If David Tandy had held a press conference, we wouldn’t have gone to it, either. Why? We had already written those stories, and as I’ve said three times now: each preson gets ONE story, placed on B1, to announce their candidacy.
That’s all they get, press conference or no.
The policy really isn’t that difficult of a concept to master. It was made, very simply, in an attempt to be even-handed and fair to everyone who annouces. Someone like Nimbus Couzin didn’t hold a press conference at all. Should we write one story about Nimbus and give Jim King two stories because we got the story before he held a presser?
I don’t think so. I think our policy works better and is more fair.
DK
12 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Based on what your bosses tell me, it’s not a policy. It’s because the paper can’t afford to send people most places.
Like important Metro Council meetings.
But whatever floats your boat.
13 fair treatment for foil hats // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:37 pm
And once again….Connnnnnie????
14 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:47 pm
You’re right, ftffh. Satisfied? :)
15 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Steve: the two paragraph “story” you mention was us reporting that Mr. Allen would step down from his leadership responsibilities at 8664 during his run for mayor. It was not a story about him declaring his candidacy, because we had already written that.
The news of Allen relinquishing his leadership of an important organization was newsworthy, wasn’t covered in the original article, and therefore deserved a mention in the newspaper. That’s the reason we wrote that.
Sorry I got the dates mixed up. You are correct, Gerth’s story on Tyler being a candidate was on the 9th; the two paragraphs on Tyler and 8664 was the later pub date.
Again, I’m not sure how a mention (or not) of a press conference where the candidate is to announce his candidacy (when we’ve already reported his candidacy) is important. Nothing you’ve written explains that to me. So I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on that one.
I’m not trying to be confrontational or argumentative. I’ve just tried to explain why the newspaper has handled these stories the way we have, and the reasoning behind it.
Agree with it or don’t. But it’s certainly untrue to say we’re “ignoring” Tyler’s candidacy, as Jake has written. But of course, Jake being wrong and over the top in his criticism of the C-J is hardly a first.
DK
16 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Hahaha – Dan Klepal, whiny ass titty baby C-J writer, tells me I’m wrong to say the C-J & others are ignoring Tyler Allen.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
As far as I can tell, you’ve yet to prove I’m wrong. As I – and others – have pointed out? It appears that you are, indeed, as a paper, ignoring Tyler Allen’s candidacy. YOU may not be ignoring his candidacy – but it’s pretty clear the paper is.
This is almost as hilarious as all those pissy emails you sent me a couple months ago when I criticized you for doing a shitty job with Brad Cummings’ press conference.
Thin skin much?
17 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Jake: debating the facts with someone who doesn’t care about the facts is always an exercise in futility, as you have proven to many people on many occasions.
The important thing here is that I’ve explained the newspaper’s policy to the people who read this website…not your reaction to it.
My only goal is for them to see what we’ve done (click on the link provided above) and understand why we’ve done it.
They’re smart enough to figure out that a 15-inch story on Tyler Allen’s candidacy doesn’t square with your “reporting” that we have ignored it.
DK
18 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Awww, yeah. That’s me. I always ignore the facts. Especially when your failing newspaper is involved.
And you never fly off the bat like a 12-year-old girl when you get the least bit of criticism. Neither does Joe Gerth.
Yeah, you totally covered Tyler well… on September 9th. Never mind that he announced his candidacy yesterday, on September 16th and had a giant ass crew of well-knowns with him.
You cannot dispute when reading the coverage provided that Tyler received poorer coverage from the C-J.
Are you being asked/told to comment here by anyone superior to you? (Just asking because of the IP address)
19 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm
It’s not my position that the C-J has ignored Allen’s candidacy overall. I hope nobody has construed my position as such.
I think the C-J should do full, timely reports on each and every candidate, and should post full information on the upcoming official announcements for all of them. All of them. (and for those who don’t do announcements, how is that any other candidate’s problem?) And I think that coverage of the official announcements makes sense as well. The public deserves this kind of coverage, no matter what a news organization’s policies are. This should go for _all_ the local news media outlets.
I would hope that the news media would rise above financial concerns or ingrained biases, and do full, fair and complete coverage of this very important race, whether my favored candidate is to succeed or not.
The next mayor, whoever it is, will have a mountain of problems to deal with. Therefore, we have to make sure that we go through the most open, deliberative, informative process in electing that person. If we love Louisville, and most of us do, that’s a must.
20 The Trojan Horse starts to roll - FatLip // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm
[...] Dan Klepal explains that C-J was consistent with its policy on covering mayoral candidates, and says here there’s no [...]
21 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm
P.S. to Dannyboy: You may want to be more honest with yourself and my readership.
And I quote:
See that? May. MAY be ignoring him.
I mean, the paper definitely is. And the ed board will hogtie him and go crazy in a shit storm of editorials, for sure. But come on.
You whiny ass titty babies can’t take criticism from some homo on the tubes so you have a meltdown – while at work – on the internets?
Hahahaha. God. LOVE IT.
I LOVE YOU DAN KLEPAL! THank you for the pageviews.
22 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Jake:
Why do you call people names and curse at them? Doesn’t really further the debate, does it? You’re posts here say WAY more about you than anyone you write about.
And you’re right, you obviously handle criticism so much better than anyone else…with a swirl of venum and profanity. Yes, we can all take a lesson from you, sir.
Thanks for helping me prove my points.
DK
PS: To your question: no one asked me to post anything. I thought it was important for your readers to understand why the C-J has covered this important topic the way we have, because they’ll never get that from you.
You’d never even think to ask.
23 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm
To almost change the subject, we nearly have a cottage industry, left, center, and right, for responding to biased C-J editorials, no matter the subject. Bring ‘em on! :)
24 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 6:33 pm
My posts here say exactly what my business cards say: provocateur.
You are, indeed, a whiny ass titty baby in my opinion. Based on your dozens of hyper-reactive thin-skinned emails to me when I criticized your shitty coverage of the Cummings presser. And based on the way you have nearly melted down here in the comments section. Only Tony Hyatt has out-performed you on that front.
Do you have no filter? No realization that you make your employer look stupid? You’re giving in to provocation and reacting in such a manner – regardless of how noble you believe – that other employers would fire you.
The more you respond and take my bait, the more relevant you make my rambling. The more money you make me. The more irrelevant you make the newsprint industry.
25 Dan Klepal // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Yes, Jake, your conduct during the exchange with Tony H. was equally horrific as the things you’ve written above. How embarrasing for you.
Best of luck,
DK
26 jake // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Yeah, I totally looked stupid after Tony Hyatt melted down because I suggested he was underpaid.
For those who don’t recall, click here and here for the necessary Tony Hyatt flashback.
27 Picture This // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I am confused. A Courier-Journal reporter has chosen to defend his newspapers coverage of several mayoral campaigns, and in his defense, admints that the C-J did not bother to cover the announcement press conferences of said mayoral candidates?
Announcement press conferences are extremely newsworthy, as the new candidate most often engages in a discussion of issues and their views on those particular issues, outlines priorities and details their vision for the particular office they seek. Plus sometimes, if they bother to show up, the media gets to ask them questions and stuff!
Glad the C-J did not bother to cover any of that inconsequential nonsense! And glad that a C-J reporter thinks that policy is worth defending in numerous blog posts. This would be the part where I should insert some snarky comment concerning the death of mainstream media, but at this point it would simply be cliche’, yes?
28 Tuck Fandy // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Easy boys- we get it. Everyone back to their corners.
29 James R. // Sep 17, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Tell me about Jim King and his financial disclosure problems again please!
30 Debby Yetter // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:38 am
Jake, you are so negative. Debby
31 jake // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 am
Yup, that’s me. Negative for engaging a bitter reporter who has spent the past few months berating me via email because I criticized the shitty job he did covering a press conference.
32 Another Editor // Sep 18, 2009 at 10:50 am
Gracious me, what a snit fit. My position remains the same: Tyler Allen is a very smart guy and, hence, unlikely to be elected to any kind of political position in Kentucky for just that reason. On the other hand, he is also very persistent and replaces the 8664 sign in his yard every time it gets all mangled up and whizzed on by the neighborhood dogs (including mine). So that counts for something, I suppose, though Gatewood G. likely would say “not much.”
Nonetheless, I’ll support him.
33 jake // Sep 18, 2009 at 10:51 am
It is, indeed, nigh impossible for him to be elected.
34 Curt Morrison // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:53 pm
As a Tyler Allen supporter, I can’t let this (one day surely-famous thread) end in despair.
Yes, Tyler Allen is a very smart guy and that’s kinda rare in politics, but it DOES NOT make him unelectable in Louisville, KY.
Fresh precedent-the same was said about Yarmuth in the Spring of 2006, now…Congressman Yarmuth.
Leave a Comment