Funtime threatens to sue Cedar Point if it builds Mondial's version of its StarFlyer

^ I didn't realise CF was a huge customer for Fun Time? Have they got installations at their other parks? I thought it was primarily parks not owned by chains that had bought Star Flyers.

I was going to talk about how Gonch doesn't wear pants while playing the drinking game while recording the podcast, but I'm disappointed it didn't already go there. It was so close.

d_port_12E said:
He may not be aware. Taking everything you learn in the class room and applying it to real life sounds nice and all, but it's not that simple. Newspaper reporters put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else. That means they have career goals, write to win awards, have a family to support, and ultimately, want to please their employers as much as, if not more than, the public.

And those people aren't journalists, they're schmucks.

And for the record, this journalist has had a book published (and translated to Chinese), written product reviews for several industries, done some minor stringer work here and there, helped shape editorial for vertical market trade rags, etc. So I'm pretty sure I know what journalism is about. Kthnxbye.

I'm sorry, did you say something? My mind drifted to somewhere else...

Pants.

Pretty sure this is the same Funtime that built the giant fiberglas slides ("dry sack slides" in my lingo). They're not exactly without a catalog, but I think they mostly dealt with carnival/fair rides.

^ I didn't realise CF was a huge customer for Fun Time?

I didn't say CF was a huge customer, only a very large representative of the industry that allows them to exist. This is like a makeshift tire company revealing Ford's new concept car before it's unveiled. Not very wise.

The real immaturity lies with the CEO of Funtime.

LostKause said:
This reporter wrote the facts. If the paper had Kick Kinzels blessings, that's great, because releasing that story a week before the announcement could possible jeopardize a friendly relationship between the two parties.

What friendly relationship? Newspapers and corporations aren't supposed to be friends. Not saying there has to be animosity, but they're not supposed to be keeping secrets for each other in the BFF sense.

So say CF is now pissed at the Register for publishing this story-- what are they going to do? Throw a hissy fit and ignore them? What they have going on right now is a mutually beneficial relationship. CF would be foolish to give up all the free publicity they get from this paper, not to mention being a sounding board for DK when the boats don't fit, when the stockholders are pissed off, etc.

Jeff said:

d_port_12E said:
He may not be aware. Taking everything you learn in the class room and applying it to real life sounds nice and all, but it's not that simple. Newspaper reporters put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else. That means they have career goals, write to win awards, have a family to support, and ultimately, want to please their employers as much as, if not more than, the public.

And those people aren't journalists, they're schmucks.

And for the record, this journalist has had a book published (and translated to Chinese), written product reviews for several industries, done some minor stringer work here and there, helped shape editorial for vertical market trade rags, etc. So I'm pretty sure I know what journalism is about.

I wasn't implying you don't know what "journalism is about."

Simply stating that there are politics that make a NEWS REPORTER less of a righteous truth seeker/protector of the public good. They have mortgages to pay just like everyone else.

It's not about righteousness or mortgages, it's about doing what's right. I can't stand when people try to cheapen and write-off the entire profession.

That's not something I'm trying to do. Just being realistic. Holding public office is about doing what's right, but we know how that story can go.

Hate to double post, but something that relates to where this thread has gone...

I've always wondered why there isn't an NPR version of news papers. It would take the private enterprise aspect out of things. It would allow for the type of staff that's needed to cover a major American city (as opposed to that which can be afforded). It would allow "journalists" to be journalists.

Now, I understand that there are negatives to this, such as concerns over our tax dollars funding Op-Ed sections, but in our current system news papers don't have the budget to cover the government (local/state governments specifically) the way they should be covered. An example? The Cleveland Plain Dealer, which at one point felt it necessary to have numerous seasoned reporters covering city hall, now has one, and only one, straight-out-of-college type doing the job. That's kind of scary.

Ultimately, I agree that a news paper's purpose, along with it's employees, is to do what's right. However, when it's a business that's looking to turn a profit, things get sketchy. In my opinion, a publicly funded news paper would take the "sketchy" out of the equation.

Because it's harder to conduct a pledge drive through the newspaper? :)

To answer your question, I think it's the difference between local reporting and the N in NPR. Public radio and TV provide a large proportion of content common to all locations with some local programming. Local reporting is the exact opposite of that. You have thousands of papers serving individual communities with some state and national news thrown in. The costs and the number of people required to do that are much greater than what it takes to do public radio and TV.

The problem with newspapers is that readership and subscriptions are down, so they rely more on advertising money to cover costs. Does this also mean that people are less interested in local news coverage, at least by a newspaper vs. the internet or TV?

Less interested in local news coverage or not, I think newspapers play a greater role than just to meet the demands of the consumer. They're an essential part of our democracy and need to operate at a certain level, no matter the demand.

Understanding the country's newspaper "infrastructure" (for lack of a better term) as much as you, I still feel it'd be a worthy cause.

You mentioned the "N" in NPR, and what's scary to me is when a local news source starts filling their pages with generic national crap simply because they continue to hack away at staffing budgets.

I agree, though, the debate on this will always come down to funding. And though, I believe it best for the country (and it's democracy), everyone seems to have a negative opinion about their local newspaper. And of course, politicians don't want to increase the amount of people looking over their shoulders ;) In fact, I'd argue most (especially on the local level) are quite pleased with the current state of print journalism.

Just happened to be perusing FunTime's pamphlets - Love the "No Patent Infringement Problems" tag they've placed on their literature....

http://www.funtime.com.au/data/flyer.htm