Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
Sure signs of summer: fluff pieces from newspapers analyzing the dietary habits of our Presidential candidates. This one in the Wall Street Journal (via the Bright One) takes a look at the restaurants both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain frequent and discover what those restaurants say about them and their families.
The Cliff's Notes? Obama is a cosmopolitan husband and father living in a city known for its world-class dining; McCain is some doddering old dude who lives in Arizona and is set in his gastronomic ways. Okay, we're exaggerating about Obama. The article, however, does give Journal reporter Raymond Sokolov an excuse to visit and rave about Topolobampo and Sepia, all while developing initial signs of a disturbing crush on Michelle Obama.
The candidates to share some common culinary ground: both love pizza and simple Tex-Mex. We're surprised that there haven't been more of these types of pieces written.[S-T]
Photo via Barack Obama's Website.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Sure signs of summer:" Chicagoist regurgitating at least 2-3 articles on a daily basis regarding Barack Obama.
Sure signs of summer: mepps being a wet blanket
Mepps:
Before my violin starts playing for you, let me ask a few questions:
1) If the site's (alleged) Obama bias is so obvious and tiresome to you, why on earth do you keep pointing it out?
2) If you feel the site's (alleged) Obama bias is so tiresome, why not do something about it? You can try to change minds about Obama instead of pointing out the evilness of a Chicago-oriented site writing about a presidential candidate from Chicago, or you could start your own anti-Obama site, if you have not already?
3) (this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but only a little): Why are you right wing types such freaking crybabies about everything? I though you were supposed to be the party of the tough, the brave, the stiff uppper lip. Quit complaining about the level of coverage and create your own level of coverage. Fight it with your own shit, not crybaby complaints. Be a citizen.
(no, I don't like Obama all that much--I will vote for him only as a protest of the ongoing insanity that still flows from large parts of the GOP, and to protest the 8 years of power-sapping policies the once reasonable party has given us--but I like crybabies even less, especially ones who cannot see the point of a Chicago-oriented site running multiple stories about a presidential candidate from Chicago who likely appeals to the site's demographics. I also don't like people who act as though they are forced to read such stories, or that Chicagoist is the only source of information in the entire world. This isn't a brainwashing session in some gulag, after all.)
I didn't point it out, its obvious.- same question goes to Chicagoist staff, if its so much 'fluff', why is it regurgitated here? Chuckie boy just happened to be the the most recent staff member to post yet another one.
Also Matilda, what makes you think you have me pegged? Because I hate reading fluff pieces from the suntimes and tribune in the morning on Obama and then seeing them reapear on Chicagoist, I'm what you think I am? nice.
If Chicagoist thinks these pieces are so lame and overdone, why do they keep reposting them?
Matilda, changing anybodies mind on Chicagoist through postings, is like trying to throw a snowball in hell. Especially yours.
Mepps: No one forces you to read this. That seems to be the point. Another point is this: Silence speaks volumes in the world of the Web and blogs. If you don't like a post, don't comment on it.
I never thought I had you pegged, except when it comes to crying about Obama posts. Other than that, I have no idea about you, and don't pretend to.
And if you cannot change anyone's mind, what is the point of posting, then--just to bitch? You SHOULD work to change people's minds about the issues most important to you. That is what citizenship is all about, even when the effort seems pointless.
Be critical of something is whinning now?
There is a difference, Mepps, in being critical and simply bitching.
Being critical means bringing some insight to the table, an interesting view, and perhaps even trying to change a person's mind. Being critical helps spark debate and thought.
Simply bitching means repeating the same flimsly charge over and over. Everyone does it, and everyone does it pretty well in Chicagoist--I am guilty as hell--but bitching does not always equal being critical.
I would be much more interested in your deeper thoughts about Obama coverage levels, or what McCain and his supporters can do to counter this, or what YOU can do to counter this, then another obvious point that wow, Chicagoist has another Obama item and you don't seem to approve. Tell me something I don't know, that might make me think.
Matilda,
Mepps is just an unemployed troll. I learned this last week, when he wanted to talk about the merits of a report on Obama's voting record, but then just insulted me when I did.
Don't feed the troll.
Obama is so great! I can hardly wait until November when I show how diverse and tolerant I am by leaving my fancy condo in my trendy neighborhood to go vote for him!
Of course, I would move out in two seconds if my neighborhood became mostly black, which is why I've never even been to Austin. And don't look at my other posts, where I mock suburbanites, rednecks, people who like food from a restaurant with two plus locations, and people who are rich like me but act different.
As an elitist democrat, I need to appear tolerant of others, without actually being so!
The 'if you don't like it, don't read it' argument is another of the worst arguments on here. Noone forces you to read my comments, but you obviously do anyway. Just becuase I don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't interest me. Pitchfork has the appeal of a screaming toddler in the back of a bus to me, so I don't read the posts, and I don't comment.
I haven't said anything about the obamessiah complex here in quite some time, I thought it was going to simmer down but its' only progressed.
Silence speaks volumes for blogs? That's news to me. Several of the last Obama posts had no comments, that didn't slow down Chicagoist. This post had zero comments until I commented, something tells me this won't be the begining of the end of the Obama posts either. Whats your point?
Matilda...your argument can be put right back at you.
Why do you read the posts that point out the Over-Obama-ing of the Chicagoist?
Why do you respond to the posts that point out the Over-Obama-ing of the Chicagoist?
You said, "Silence speaks volumes in the world of the Web and blogs. If you don't like a post, don't comment on it."
That is the complete opposite of the ideology of Webs and blogs. If you are an advertiser on a website and you just pull your ad that is one thing. But regular readers SHOULD say what is on their mind.
Matilda- "Simply bitching means repeating the same flimsly charge over and over."
ChicagoD- "Mepps is just an unemployed troll. I learned this last week, when he wanted to talk about the merits of a report on Obama's voting record, but then just insulted me when I did."
Haha
Oh, and I think that irishman and mepps are probably the same person because they appear to have a Batman-and-Robin-like ability to cooperate on their posts and to do so in an incredibly timely fashion.
Don't feed the trolls.
Mepps:
Allow me to weigh in (ha, food, weigh, fatness...ha...er...never mind)
I'm not a staunch Obama-ist by any means. I disagree with him on any number of issues.
But he's from Chicago.
He's the biggest story of the year Young Bi-racial freshman senator candidate upsets the all but coronated Clinton? That's the biggest politcal story of the year. Hell, of the decade one could argue.
He's an object of fascination, curiosity and he spins stories out of his own very compelling narrative on a daily basis.
There's plenty of snark in these story Mepps. I don't get the "he is the chosen one!" vibe off the Chicagoist coverage.
But Mepps, the point is, you made no argument, only pointed out something you did not like.
You offered no ideas about what Chicagoist should do differently.
You offered no insight about what McCain might do to increase coverage.
You considered none of the reasons about Chicagoist might have Obama items so often (I offered some easy ideas).
You just simply bitched.
Here I am, basically begging you for some real debate, and you have none. What is wrong? Do you have nothing to offer?
And yes, silence--lack of hits, lack of comments--is a prime currency in the world of blogs. Go ahead--research it. I double dare you.
I dare say you are no so much bothered by the coverage as much as the candidate. That is OK--I don't care whom you vote for--but it does border on being intellectually dishonest.
The meaning of debate on Chicagoist usually devolves into a 'you called me a...', 'I said that becuase your an idiot...'. I would be willing to be a lot of money minds have not been changed, thanks to Chicagoist.
But if you want, a great example of the media coverate is that from the NYtimes just yesterday. Sure, Mcain possibly did not have the exact plan concerning Iraq in his piece, but that does not mean there is no plan. If the plan is to have an active plan, then you will not have a 'solid' plan to lay out concerning Iraq. Not publishing the essay is an example. Also just today, I've already seen several articles citing a study that says Obama leads the nightly newcasts, newsarticles, and magazine with over 70%-75% centered on him.
"And yes, silence--lack of hits, lack of comments--is a prime currency in the world of blogs."
Fair enough.
Posting and pointing out what a site/blog is doing wrong has value to it as well.
"I dare say you are no so much bothered by the coverage as much as the candidate. That is OK--I don't care whom you vote for--but it does border on being intellectually dishonest."
how is not liking a candidate intellectually dishonest? All these people who hate Bush with a passion are intellectually dishonest? What about liking somebody over another person? that argument just doesnt make sense.
lack of hits is different than lack of comments. A blog with thousands of hits a day and does not allow comments is just as, if not moreso viable, than a blog that has 20 comments and 30 hits all day.
Well, Mepps, you often frame these complaints in terms of too much coverage, not the candidate. I guess I mistook your real position. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one--that your concerns really were about the coverage level, not the choice of candidate. Subtle difference, but there is a difference. My mistake and my apologies.
That said, I think you bring expectations here that are far too high, and you fail to understand the importance of the story, as Albany has helpfully pointed out.
Mepps,
Do we need to help you find some pro-McCain sites where you'll be happy? Why do you even stay here? I rarely see you post on any other topic that doesn't feature Obama so I take it you're not here for the other content.
"That said, I think you bring expectations here that are far too high, and you fail to understand the importance of the story"
How can I have too high of expectations yet not get the importance of the story? I think you mean, not get the point of the story.
I never said I don't think this is an historic moment, because it is. By no means am I suggesting that importance not be placed on it. However, it seems that the depth of stories has been sacrificed for more stories on a much shallower level; case in point- today's story!! There really isn't any analysis on Obama's stance, other than pointing them out. Yet, we are demanding Mcain not only analyze his stance, but that it should emulate Obama's.
Again, like I said in the past- the entire "change we can believe in" slogan is bullshit. When is the last time you believed in change? You can't. You can hope for change, but once change happens, its occurring, your not believing anything. Whether you believe it or not, change always happens, its convenient to say 'see, there is change occuring' and then you come out a winner. Well, no matter what anybody does, actions will create change. It's a feel good slogan, that really doesn't mean anything.
Well we would both agree that there's no kind of dramatic change that will take place any time soon. That's why I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.
I'm still having trouble seeing anything legitimate about your beef though. This is not a serious news outlet, it's meant to be light entertainment.
Enough of this nonsense. I want to know if Barack and Michelle enjoy eating Plantain Nachos at Cslypso Cafe!
Mepps: Your complaints about the Obama coverage pretty much have as much weight as saying fresh snow is white. No shit Chicagoist covers Obama often. Do you want a gold star for that observation? You fail to recognized the importance of this story for Chicago, in terms of basic news value, and you seem to think this is a major or sole news outlet, given the sincerity of your complaints.
As least we agree that the slogan is bullshit. And we probably agree a lot on Obama, to be honest. Man, that vote for him is going to taste like ass in the morning, I am sure.
Navin- have you thought maybe Chicagoist and it's readers take my comments a little too seriously?! It seems I've offended so many people. What the fuck is wrong with criticizing what I view as a slightly elevated infatuation with a politician!?!? That's all I was pointing out- I think my point has been made with all you defenders freaking out and claiming there is no "legitimate" point and jumping all over it.
You've legitimized it yourselves. Thank you.
Uh Mepps,
It's the *only* thing you do here.