Monday, May 10, 2010

Which CJ version is meant for you?

Our Champion, Tyler Allen, was introduced satirically by Joe Arnold at this morning's Breakfast of Champions Breakfast, held at the U of L's University Center, as "Courier-Journal's favorite candidate" to which Tyler victoriously raised both hands high. An applause ensued.

In case you missed it Sunday, the Courier Journal Editorial Board predictably endorsed Greg Fischer as their Democratic candidate for mayor of Louisville. Depending on how you get your news, you received a different version of the message. The print version included a very different version than was subjected to online readers, more likely to be Tyler's followers. All in all, there were 11 significant varations between the story. One sentence online readers intended for at-home subscribers only, clearly stands out:
"He is unsuited for the job of mayor."
2 audiences, 2 separate messages. This is just the latest example of the Courier Journal Editorial Board's practice of controlling information to promote the agenda of a very few.


Other discrepancies are more peculiar. In the paper, Fischer "makes a compelling case that he is the candidate best-suited..." but online he "makes a credible case." (This staffer doesn't think he makes either.) With Tandy, the CJ chose to communicate only to online readers that he has "not raised money to have a presence on television" while in print they write "he has not raised enough money to make himself a serious contender..." With King, they used the word "deceptively" in printed version, and "erroneously" online. See a pattern? They're being meaner in the printed version. Why?

Look for Tyler's rebuttal in the CJ later in the week. They've limited him to 200 words or less. No word yet on whether his word count can be more 8 words more for the print edition.


  1. I love the spin of "federal and Indiana partners" al this means is $$. There is federal money available for new construction such as both bridges or 1 bridge. Simple math tells you that it will take more money to build both bridges, and can create more SHORT-TERM jobs with that money, but those jobs can then be peg-boarded for future propoganda, telling "how many jobs were created with the money". Its fluff! The jobs that would be created by the ORBP are short-term, non-high quality jobs. Are the jobs?? Yes, of course. Are they jobs that one should view as building a long term future, no!

  2. Well, personally, I don't think too many people would want to trust their important political decision making to a newspaper like the CJ. Fore the sake of our City, let's hope not! The CJ has always been deceitful, indecisive, and expert at manipulating things they have done wrongly to try to make them look better to readers...much like many of the ("other") candidates in the Louisville Mayoral race! Seriously, they cannot even prevent serious mistake, malfunction and failure with their publication, such as the recent day after Derby printing that was a disaster. Sure, things happen, but not if they are properly planned for and prevented, which, in this case, they certainly were not. Do we really want to put any weight on what such a publication thinks is best for the future of our city? Not if i can help it! I have never subscribed to CJ, and I am not particularly fond of their reporting and opinions either. It comes as no surprise that I am certainly not convinced with what they think would be the best choice for Louisville! Face it...they are scrambling to hold onto what is left of their business, and I would not doubt it at all if there is "something in it for them" somewhere by trying to help get King in the Mayor's office! I'm just sayin'......"
    Stacey D.

  3. Whoops! I meant to enter Fischer in at the CJ trying to get him into the Mayor's office! Boy, now I look like I work for the CJ! LOL! I was reading another excerpt about King when I wrote this. My apologies! :-)