1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the DMN sucks

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SockPuppet, Aug 7, 2006.

  1. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    Here's a post from the DMN's veteran (over 25 years) TV critic Ed Bark. The post is part of a reply he gave to a D Magazine reporter regarding the DMN banning coverage/critiques of the four local TV stations:

    'Our ban on coverage or critiquing of the locals, dating to Feb. 2000, is a continued source of frustration and embarrassment. I've argued the case for years, but recently got smacked down again by various levels of decision-makers.
    Anyway, the ban seems especially foolhardy in light of our new direction toward localism. I'm probably being more blunt than I should be during these decidedly tenuous times at the DMN. But everyone at every level of the paper and the corporation knows exactly how I feel about this, so what the hell.
    Still, it was nice of you to take notice. Ignoring the history of local TV news in the seventh largest market in the country is not a wise policy. If only I had any hope anymore that it would someday be rescinded."

    Of course, since Belo owns the DMN and the local ABC affiliate, perhaps the DMN suits didn't feel it would be "fair" to have its TV writer critiquing the locals.

    Whatta bunch a' bozos.
  2. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    So a major metro newspaper provides no coverage of local television?

  3. Montezuma's Revenge

    Montezuma's Revenge Active Member

    I hope airing that publicly doesn't come back to bite Bark, who does a good job.
  4. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Sounds like he no longer cares if it does.
  5. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    I have a feeling if DMN bounced him, FW would pick him up in a heartbeat. That'd be a huge feather in the S-T cap.
  6. Grey

    Grey Member

    guy's got balls. good for him.
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Wonder what happened in Feb. 2000 to get the ban started.
  8. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Belo Corp. (which owns both the DMN and WFAA-TV, Channel 8 ) was grandfathered-in under the FCC's ban of ownership of TV and newspapers in the same media market.

    With that in mind, I suppose the DMN decided to hold off on critiquing the local media. Doing so would've shown a perceived bias. (And rightly so.)

    That's the reason Barry Horn gives the likes oof Vin Scully and Myron Cope a slobber job every week instead of home-grown Norm Hitzges and Brad Sham.
  9. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    Belo owned the DMN and Channel 8 long before the FCC ruling in 2000. And back in the day, local TV critics could write about, well, local guys. This is about The DMN Suits making editorial policy which is just Fing stupid.
  10. It has nothing to do with perceived bias or conflict of interest. They don't want the critics letting readers and viewers know the TV emperors have no clothes.
  11. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Actually the FCC rule extends to 1975. That's how the Tribune has maintained ownership of Channel 9 (and the DMN Channel 8 in Dallas.)

  12. spaceman

    spaceman Active Member

    in this case, it sounds like Bark is worse than his bite.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page