Dan Savage, Gun Nuts
OK, so the Mayor's office refused to comment about what it termed Dan Savage's "juvenile publicity stunt" featured in this week's Capitol Hill Bugler. Sure, everyone knows that Savage is a publicity whore, hypocrite (he's libertarian except when he doesn't like something) and so on, but his publicity stunts are generally fairly harmless. But I think this time out the 40-something teenager (but he swears he's 32!) fucked things up for other reporters in town and knifed-up Josh Feit, his paper's news editor. That's because Savage charged into City Hall last week armed with pot cookies and a toy gun (pretty realistic looking in the pics, however) to make a point about how dumb Mayor Nickels' proposed nightlife ordinance is. He's right: it's a dumb ordinance, as this paper has noted repeatedly.
Too bad Savage is dumber.
You see, Savage used the power of the press (he was playing reporter when he visited da' mayor's office, how fucking quaint!) to get behind closed doors in Nickels' offices. And he did so while carrying a weapon—that it was fake is beside the point because it just as easily could've been real. That's now going to make the security folks at City Hall rethink who gets to go where and under what circumstances. Why's that important?
When the new City Hall opened in 2003, Feit sounded the alarm about how offices in the building would be closed to the press and public unless a reporter, say, had a specific appointment to get behind the locked doors to City Council members' offices. That would've totally screwed up the press' right to casually cruise around amongst politicians playing with tax dollars and ask them annoying questions when they least expected it. And that's exactly what the public expects us to do and that's exactly what we've got the First Amendment for. Feit's column was brilliant then, and one of maybe two things he's ever written with which I agreed.
That led to a meeting the following week with Council's office administrator and several reporters (Feit blew the meeting off, unaccountably). The forces of the locked doors pointed out that this was post-9/11 America and that security was paramount. We just cannot have people cruising around—they could be up to no good. The reporters—most notably Jim Brunner and Bob Young of the Seattle Times—pointed out that that was horseshit. The media won and were allowed to wander behind locked doors at City Hall pretty much as it pleased after waving their press badge. No appointment needed.
There's a pretty good chance that Savage put all of that in jeapordy when he went skipping off to City Hall last week to play reporter. But, then, he's little more than a gadfly with a pen. He was way-stoned and some people will excuse his behavior as just a harmless bit of savagery. Bet that SPD and City Hall security don't think that it was. And, neither do I.
40 comment(s)
Seely says:
To Menace: Just trying to return the favor after Dan\'s \"Ask a Mexican\" post on Slog.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 11:35AM
steph says:
\"I care about what I put into my body.\"--Savage
\"So I skipped the open-air drug market in the vicinity of City Hall. Instead, I scored some quality pot from a quality source and turned it over to a quality baker. My buddy the baker reduced the pot in oil and then, using a box of Ghirardelli chocolate chip cookie mix, whipped me up a huge batch of insanely powerful pot cookies.\"--Savage
High Quality drugs are better than cheap ones logic..OK, riiight.
\"It wasn\'t a real gun (I\'m afraid of real guns), but a really scary-looking prop gun.\"-Savage
Last I knew, when students in schools bring ANY thing that even remotely resembles a weapon into a school building or onto a campus, they will be expelled.
Or, if a cop saw a person with a realistic prop gun, they would have aimed a real one at the person, and told them to drop the weapon.
To make a point to the Mayor this way, not only sounds Junior High, it does not sound like a credible, intelligent journalist at work.
I hope Savage does not try to prove any points at an airport anytime soon.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 11:42AM
menance says:
Why did you take down the other comments, including mine, and leave only your comment, which now doesn\'t make any sense? Does the Weekly edit out unfavorable comments from its blog? Apparently so.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 4:42PM
seattle98104 says:
#1) lose all my good writers
#2) start a blog (like the stranger\'s) but edit out comments i don\'t like
...
PROFIT!!
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 5:19PM
COMTE says:
Philip:
C\'mon, admit it. You\'re just jealous nobody at SW thought of this first.
And since we\'re on the subject of accessibility, how open are the hallways where YOU work? Am I allowed to come in, hang out, and ask you embarrassing questions when you least expect it?
Huh. Thought not.
\"This Post Will Automatically Self-Destruct As Soon As Someone From The Weakly Reads It\".
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 6:30PM
keyless chuck says:
If you are going to edit comment strings you don\'t like, your blog is simply not worth it. Reminds one of the good old Soviet Union where each new leader rewrote the history books. Why the thin skin?
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 31 2006 @ 10:23PM
eugene says:
Philip Dawdy, Seattle Weekly writer and blogger, took harsh issue with Dan Savage on Seattle Weekly�s blog earlier today for Savage�s stunt involving pot cookies, a toy gun, and city hall. That, given the antagonism between the two papers, might have been expected. What wasn�t expected, and indeed might be unprecedented, was how Seattle Weekly reacted when, after exchanging even harsher words with a reader over the blog entre, someone at the Weekly decided to delete the whole exchange: not only the reader�s remarks, but Dawdy�s also. (By chance, this reporter, was able to cut and paste those exchanges before they dissapeared. See below). This might be the very first time any newspaper, say nothing of one belonging to the �alternative press� has undertaken such a drastic measure. And it�s probably a fair to say it�s the first time a writer for a fairly well-respected publication that has New Yorker-of-Seattle aspirations, calls one of its readers/commentors a �douchebag.�
Indeed, even a mainstream daily newspaper, like the Sacramento Bee, would consider such action a case of blatant censorship. Tony Marcano, the Bee�s ombusdman, wrote about the huge controversy surrounding the paper�s blog when it was discovered the author of the blog was subject to some slight edits.
Just so the Weekly knows, there�s a new book out by Reporters Without Borders called the Blog Censorship Handbook. The book instructs journalists how to cicumvent blog censorshop in countries like Iran and China, where such action routinely takes place.
Here are the exchanges. The first one is following the rebuke by Dawdy:
----As Dan\'s PR director, we thank you for taking the bait. It was a stunt to get people to notice and write about Dan and The Stranger. And you did. The details don\'t matter much, it\'s the reactions that count, although the story may, as you indicate, result in new security at City Hall - which apparently it should - and for which Dan can be credited. Thanks again for spreading the word!
Posted today at 10:24 am by Menance
\"
----You see, Savage used the power of the press (he was playing reporter when he visited da\' mayor\'s office, how fucking quaint!)
\"
Wait ... did Savage flash a press pass or introduce himself to security as a \"reporter?\" That\'s not mentioned in his article.
If he didn\'t � and merely entered as a moderately famous local character � does this argument still apply? Do tell.
Posted today at 11:07 am by h0rati0sanzserif
----To Menace: Just trying to return the favor after Dan\'s \"Ask a Mexican\" post on Slog.
Posted today at 11:35 am by Seely
----\"I care about what I put into my body.\"�Savage
\"So I skipped the open-air drug market in the vicinity of City Hall. Instead, I scored some quality pot from a quality source and turned it over to a quality baker. My buddy the baker reduced the pot in oil and then, using a box of Ghirardelli chocolate chip cookie mix, whipped me up a huge batch of insanely powerful pot cookies.\"�Savage
High Quality drugs are better than cheap ones logic..OK, riiight.
\"It wasn\'t a real gun (I\'m afraid of real guns), but a really scary-looking prop gun.\"-Savage
Last I knew, when students in schools bring ANY thing that even remotely resembles a weapon into a school building or onto a campus, they will be expelled.
Or, if a cop saw a person with a realistic prop gun, they would have aimed a real one at the person, and told them to drop the weapon.
To make a point to the Mayor this way, not only sounds Junior High, it does not sound like a credible, intelligent journalist at work.
I hope Savage does not try to prove any points at an airport anytime soon.
Posted today at 11:42 am by steph
----oh hi horatio or whatever the hell your handle is: you don\'t check in with security at city hall, you check in with a receptionist. if you are known toi them to be a press person or you have your little old press badge in you go.
Posted today at 11:55 am by Dawdy
----Dawdy (or whatever the hell your handle is):
Uh, you didn\'t answer my question. Was Savage known to be a press person or have \"a little old press badge?\"
Posted today at 12:43 pm by h0rati0sanzserif
----Dawdy\'s my name douchebag. Savage is of course widely known in Seattle as a press person. Any otehr questions, Mr. Sanserif?
Posted today at 12:58 pm by Dawdy
----Douchebag? Is this the new, erudite New Yorker-styled Weekly speaking - or am I back reading my high school newspaper? If you can\'t write, try at least to have a little class.
Posted today at 1:39 pm by Menance
----No, Menance, douchebag is my erudite new jersey-styled way of speaking. i can write better than you likely every have in your life. so go away now little menance.
Posted today at 2:17 pm by Dawdy
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 1 2006 @ 7:20AM
seattle98104 says:
Oh god, please don\'t tell me Dawdy really pulled the \"I\'m hollier than thou\" writer\'s card.
And I thought the stranger\'s blog lacked maturity.
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 1 2006 @ 9:12AM
JOSH IS A SHORT GUY IN A FUN HOUSE MIRROR says:
Gawd you Stranger people are so thin skinned.
You can\'t let even one little criticism about you go by without screaming bloody murder, can you? And then it\'s you who cast judgments of maturity? Please.
And by the way, to all you folks who are condemning the Weekly\'s blog censorship: Your beloved Slog is heavily censored -- particularly when a reader criticizes one of the Stranger\'s crybaby \"reporters\".
Believe me, I know. The last time I posted on Slog -- calling out Josh Feit for one of his endless idiotic and baseless rants -- not only did the Stranger censor and eliminate my comments, they banned me from their narcissitic little web diary entirely.
So, I wonder, which weblog is more Sovietesque? The \"douchebag\" name-callers? Or the \"hear no evil\"-and-kill the messenger narcissists?
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 1 2006 @ 10:16AM
every have says:
---
\"i can write better than you likely every have in your life.\"
---
indeed.
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 1 2006 @ 11:58AM
slog reader says:
\"Posted today at 11:58 am by every have\"
Ha!
And the Stranger blog does not edit its comments. I wish it would, because there are all manner of retards in there calling their reporters racists, typical jews, jew haters, etc, etc. Since they haven\'t blocked SW from accessing their website (as SW has done in reverse-- talk about juvenile), it\'s not unfair to assume that many of the comments originate with you. Keep \'em coming if you must, but try to at least make them funny or factual (calling Savage out for being a sometime hypocrite and ninny about admitting his age are good points, calling your readers \"douchebags\" as you do here and in the Stranger comments is boring).
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 1 2006 @ 3:09PM
steph says:
\"calling Savage out for being a sometime hypocrite and ninny about admitting his age are good points\"
Actually calling attention to Savage\'s lack of judgement that could have ended up differently is the point.
As any reader here can see, I did leave one comment, that reflects this point.
Focusing on a word or censorship of a blog is not what sloggy readers should be paying attention to, talk about stop changing the sujbect.
Classic case of being caught doing something immature with consequences of losing credibility as a journalist--Savage did this and you all know it.
In light of the recent murders in and about town with guns involved, I cannot imagine anyone being so senseless, without judgement, being a well known reporter to boot, proving a point this way.
To the Sloggers posting here--get your sludge back on the Stranger where it belongs and crawl back under your rocks.
SW readers won\'t be enticed to read the Stranger this way, and pl-leaase, get over the word douchebag.
It really is not the point of the story, and any one intelligent knows that.
Posted On: Saturday, Sep. 2 2006 @ 6:53AM
steph says:
Typo correction:\"stop changing the sujbect\"
Let that read: \"stop changing the SUBJECT.\"
Posted On: Saturday, Sep. 2 2006 @ 6:57AM
Menance says:
Hello, anybody home? Did you notice your blog is fucked up? Reader comments edited out, unconnected responses left in, editorial additions made by a reader - resulting in a confused and unethical string of nonsense and name calling - (besides tagging one reader a douchebag and telling another he couldn\'t write, P. Dawdy also sent me a personal e-mail response that consisted of: \"Fuck you.\") And after readers call this to the editor\'s attention, What is SW\'s solution to this insulting, errant mess? Go away for a three-day weekend! This is a great business plan by the hip geniuses from Phoenix: Cut staff, downsize coverage, stiffle comment, belittle readers, fail to correct errors, and forgo ethics and credibility for the sake of \"returning the favor\" to The Stranger. Maybe that is a business plan after all: Let the little paper dictate your future. It\'s obviously working for them.
Posted On: Saturday, Sep. 2 2006 @ 7:55AM
seattle98104 says:
\"Focusing on a word or censorship of a blog is not what sloggy readers should be paying attention to, talk about stop changing the sujbect.\"
I\'m sorry, I didn\'t mean to question your uber-authority on credibility.
I mean, we\'re suppose take your judgement of Savage for face value when Dawdy can\'t keep his cool when conversing with a blog commenter?
I might as well jump to conclusions and assume this entire post was fueled by Dawdy\'s belief that he can write better than Savage \"likely every\" has in his life.
Your right, maybe we should be focussing how much of a tool one of the few remaining Weekly writers is, and ask why the fuck hasn\'t Phoenix fired his ass.
Oh, and i can\'t wait for a fuck you email. Hillarious.
Posted On: Sunday, Sep. 3 2006 @ 1:28AM
clark griswold says:
You want to know what I think? I think you\'re all fucked in the head. We\'re four hours from the fucking fun park and you want to turn around and go home. Well this isn\'t a blog anymore. It\'s a quest. It\'s a quest for fun. I\'m going to have fun and you\'re going to have fun. We\'re going to have so much fucking fun we\'re going to be singing zippity-do-dah out of our assholes. We\'re going to need plastic surgery to remove the smiles from our godamn faces...
Posted On: Sunday, Sep. 3 2006 @ 9:09PM
Biff says:
dawdy losing his cool with a reader is an issue? have you ever seen savage go after readers who disagree with him?
Posted On: Sunday, Sep. 3 2006 @ 10:42PM
braindead says:
There you go: Dawdy and Savage, two pees in a pot.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 9:06AM
seattle98104 says:
no Biff, it\'s not that Dawdy lost his cool. the issue is that Dawdy lost his cool, then he (or someone at the weekly) decided to cover up the fact that Dawdy lost his cool and deleted those comments and the comments Dawdy was referring to.
that\'s the issue; idiotic censorship.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 9:22AM
Biff says:
hey 98104, the stranger removes shit from its blogs and last time i cehcked both the stranger and the weekly own their blogs and can do whatever they want with them. so why don\'t you go start your own blog \'cuz i am sure there is a world just gasping waiting for your genius thoughts. hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 10:31AM
Steph says:
Now, kids don\'t make me pull this bus over!
BTW, Clark W Griswold used a BB gun to get into Wally World.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 11:46AM
braindead says:
It\'s pretty clear, by the wording - \'cuz, his commonly used blog word - and the mistyping - usual hurried irrational thoughts - that Biff is Dawdy parading as someone else on his own blog. Does it never stop with this guy?
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 1:18PM
seattle98104 says:
Biff it\'s not about you or I, but nice job trying to make it so.
You\'re right, a privately owned blog can do what ever the fuck it wants, but that dosn\'t mean they get a free-skate from their readers. Credibilty is what news organizations rely on, and if a paper like the weekly starts to look like a shit rag being dredged through the trenches of Dawdy\'s ass (e.g. his \'ego\') than yes, blog censorship matters.
Do you really want to alienate your readership by calling your readers douchebags, and putting yourself on a platinum pedastal by proclaiming (yeah this is getting old, but i\'ll write just one more time, I promise) that you \"can write better than you likely every have in your life\"?
Seriously, Seattle Weekly you are not God in high-heels.
Don\'t let dawdy turn you into a bitch.
Caue I still like reading you.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 1:37PM
Steph says:
\"Caue I still like reading you.\"
Everyone\'s capable of typos.
This thread alone has increased SW readership.
Awesome job!
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 1:58PM
Steph says:
Everyone reading this thread knows the point of the original story:
To call attention to a senseless stunt, by Savage, causing him loss of credibility and respect whether Sloggers want to admit it or not.
Why did he do it?
Drama-queen?
Funster?
Attention-seeking Junior High Mentality?
Who knows, but he appears to be quite proud of himself.
So there was censoring here. Removal of a few posts. BFD.
Life is so not over.
How many letters or phone calls have any of you anti-censorship crew members made or written over the years; if so passionate about the topic, I will assume there are many.
Music, news, what you watch on TV, it\'s all censored folks.
So what is the point here? censorship or bashing?
Make it once, and go have a cheap beer if you can find one in town and do something constructive with your minds.
Though, this has been highly entertaining, and as a result, I am now a leading authority on credibility.(thanks!)
Actually, integrity and credibility are what readers of any news worthy piece o paper want to see in the pages, and that is why all of the bitching here won\'t stop or reduce readership of the SW.
Cause it has credibility and integrity in tact.
In fact, this has turned into such a highly read thread to the point, it may just cause people to think more; whether it is about gun control, censorship, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, or choice of words and freedom of speech; then,in my opinion, this paper has done it\'s job well.
Keeping a fresh perspective and having thought provoking conversations.
So, here is a provocative idea:
Maybe, the SW censored the blog on purpose to get you all thinking, talking and typing.
So far this entry has opened discussion for journalistic credibility, censorship, freedom and the right to use words of choice, gun control, and illegal drug purchasing and delivery to a Mayor\'s office.
Not bad.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 3:19PM
hmmm says:
This is hilarious! I love it!
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 6:12PM
hmmm says:
having at last made it to steph\'s post at 3:19, I must say that Steph was reasonable. It was all the previous banter that made one dizzy.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 6:37PM
gal pal says:
From Steph:
\"Why did he do it?
Drama-queen?
Funster?
Attention-seeking Junior High Mentality?\"
Not that these aren\'t legitimate interpretations, indeed worthy of blab, but wouldn\'t it make sense for Steph to include in the list Savage\'s stated purpose for the stunt: to generate a critique of the Mayor\'s new proposed restrictions and requirements for nightclubs? Gotta admit that he has had some success in that department, if perhaps also in the drama and fun and self-promotion departments.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 4 2006 @ 10:15PM
Steph says:
\"but wouldn\'t it make sense for Steph to include in the list Savage\'s stated purpose for the stunt\"--gal pal
If I was cutting a paycheck, gal.
\"generate a critique of the Mayor\'s new proposed restrictions and requirements for nightclubs\"--gal pal
Ya really, really want me to critique the proposal? and the smoking ban, the derailed Monorail, the cheap booze restrictions, among other things?
Then gimme my own column.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 5 2006 @ 7:43AM
someguy says:
Right on Steph!!!
It\'s good to see a rational thought come out on a blog in Seatte.
Savages stunt was just that... A stunt.
However, i do have to say I am more than a little \"less than impressed\" with the response of The Mayors Office and the SPD on this situation.
Savage should have been arrested and prosecuted for this action.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 5 2006 @ 3:19PM
seattle98104 says:
there in lies the point, someguy.
savage wasn\'t arrested. the cops weren\'t called.
therefor, the mayor\'s office is a bunch of hypocrites in regards to the whole blanket policy prevention of drugs and weapons in a club when they can\'t even keep their own house in order. why should the mayor\'s office have the power to shut down a club for not \"preventing\" weapons and drugs, when the mayor can\'t even prevent them in his own office? and can\'t even get his staffers to follow law when confronted with doped out Savage offering them drugs?
It\'s called hpocracy, and savage\'s stunt brings it right out in the open,
everyone understands it was a stunt, but don\'t act like it doesn\'t have merit.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 5 2006 @ 6:01PM
Comte says:
You have to acknowledge the irony - The \"new\" Weakly tries to play catchup with The Stranger by jumping on the blog bandwagon (months and months behind their competition), yet the only thread to-date that can muster more than one or two responses - is one in which The Stranger plays the dominant role.
Granted, much of the thread has been co-opted by Sloggers (myself included), but then, if it weren\'t for us, Dawdy would have to swear at himself in the mirror, not having any other object upon which to spew his vitriole.
Apparently, the editorial strategy at the \"new\" Weakly is to try to imitate The Stranger circa 1997 by using the tactics of juvenile potty-mouthedness to connotate \"edginess\", and by drumming up controversy where none exists (at least if we\'re to take the inaction by the Mayor\'s Office and SPD as any indication) to rile up an otherwise somnambulant readership.
Not that The Stranger doesn\'t still do this on occasion: they\'re just more up-front about it, and execute it with a great deal more panache than the grumpy, brittle-skinned, middle-aged hipster wannabees around here seem capable of doing.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 5 2006 @ 7:57PM
Steph says:
\"Savages stunt was just that... A stunt.
However, i do have to say I am more than a little \"less than impressed\" with the response of The Mayors Office and the SPD on this situation.\"--someguy
I decided to call the Mayor\'s office, and ask them what their stand /statement was regarding the Savage Stunt.
First, I was placed on hold for a few minutes, after being told that I was to be connected with his assistant.
Second, the receptionist came back on the line, apologized for keeping me on hold for so long, but she was told she was supposed to connect me with the Communications Director instead.
I commented:
\'Do you mean P.R. person?\"
Receptionist:
\"It\'s not called that up here.\"
Me:
\"Up where?\"
Receptionist:
\"The Seventh Floor.\"
I reminded her, that those of us \"down here\" still call it P.R. She bantered quickly back at me, that \"we call it Communications Director\".
I was then connected to the CD, PR whatever you choose to call her, and she didn\'t pick up.
I called the Receptionist back and asked her if they return citizen\'s phone calls within a timely fashion? such as within 24 hours?
Receptionist:
\"It depends on how important the matter is.\"
I commented that the citizen concerns should be of top importance, and that I expect to be served as such .
(such as an elected official needs to have a fan-club, don\'t ya think?)
I then placed another call after being assured that Com Director was yes, in fact in the building.
Still got the voicemail.
\"everyone understands it was a stunt, but don\'t act like it doesn\'t have merit.\"--seattle98104
Well, 98104, apparently this stunt, in the Mayor\'s office, does not have merit.
Not enough merit to talk to his assistant, and being shoved off to the P.R. department speaks volumes about Nickels. (was this his stunt?)
Do you suppose, now this could be a provocative thought :
The Mayor is silent, because he sat down and enjoyed those cookies and chased Savage around the building with his own toy (gun)?
Now that\'s good P.R.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 9:05AM
seattle98104 says:
Steph your just furthering the point. The Mayor is a hypocrate. He wants the power to close down clubs at will for their not \"preventing\" drugs and weapons, but he doesn\'t give a flying fuck, nor do his staffers, if people bring drugs and weapons into his office.
If he doesn\'t care about what Savage did, than he shouldn\'t have the power to shut down nightclubs per his will.
It\'s nice that your obseesed with Savage\'s stunt and all, but can we get to talking about the Mayor\'s hypocracy? and idiotic policy recommendations? or is the weekly pro-mayor and anti-nightlife?
please tell.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 9:12AM
Steph says:
ethic. (n)-
1.
A principle of right or good conduct or a body of of such principles.
2. A system of moral principles or values.
3. ethics (v.)-The study of the general nature of morals and of specific moral choices.
4. ethics (v.)- The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession.
ethical-(adj.)-
1. of or dealing with ethics.
2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles that govern the conduct of a group, esp. of a profession.
Returning the discussion back to the original entry by Dawdy; I do believe the discussion needs to re- focus on the ethical choice Savage made, rather the unethical choice he made, to abuse his power due to being part of a profession that makes a living off of integrity and credibility.
I simply cannot imagine anyone who takes their job seriously, doing something such as this, unless it was simply to make one\'s self look foolish to others in their profession. Causing a ripple effect for other journalists.
I believe, that respect from others within a person\'s profession is always important.
As far as being \"obsessed\", no, actually, this entry started a good focus on many key issues, and I decided to ask the Mayor myself what he thought of Savage and his stunt, and am further intrigued at the dismissal of my query.
If any Citizen without a press badge were to try such a stunt, I\'m pretty sure the person would have been cuffed and arrested; and journalists would have been taking names, dates and times.
Abuse of Power.
There\'s the focus, returned.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 11:32AM
seattle98104 says:
You\'re definately a one-way stream churning up the white wate, steph. this boat\'s searching for calmer waters.
I\'m guessing your not a fan of gonzo journalism or for that matter indy media in general. Can you acknowledge that whast Savage did proves a point regardless of style and or morality? And for that matter what the fuck is immoral about what Savage did? and what is unethical in what Savage did?
You might not immagine a world where journalists take risks in bringing truth to light, but I do (and I\'m probably more representative of the popullace than a curmudgeon like yourself).
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 12:00PM
COMTE says:
All this self-righteous bloviation is really quite amusing! I think all you so-called \"reporters\" at The Weakly are just jealous because Savage is more famous than you - for doing precisely these kinds of stunts - and it just seems to gall you to no end that he keeps getting all this press coverage (which you yourselves are contributing to mightily), while you \"serious\" journalists have to stand on the sidelines jumping and shouting in desperate hope that someone will notice you.
Sorry, but acting offended at Dan\'s \"unprofessionalism\" DOESN\'T make you look MORE professional by comparison.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 4:18PM
Steph says:
\"Can you acknowledge that whast Savage did proves a point regardless of style and or morality? And for that matter what the fuck is immoral about what Savage did? and what is unethical in what Savage did?\"
You need to ask?
\"and I\'m probably more representative of the popullace than a curmudgeon like yourself).\"
This is one time, my dear, you are wrong.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 11:05PM
Steph says:
COMTE-
I am not a reporter, and I never have to jump to get anything I want; and I am always noticed.
Seems the word ethic got ya.
Knew it would.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 11:20PM
Steph says:
Ok Seattle 98104 savage--
My passion IS shedding light on darkness. Now this blog was deemed by one blogger as a place to have fun.
I love humor, fun, and I am over-the-top smart. So. Where , in the middle of the road do we meet?
I love how this entry has somehow, caused someone to think.
Back to your original request:
\"but can we get to talking about the Mayor\'s hypocracy? and idiotic policy recommendations? or is the weekly pro-mayor and anti-nightlife?\"
Whatever happens in Vegas Stays In Vegas.
4 feet rule? are you shitting me? 4 feet really prevents erotic fantasies, and 25 feet prevents 2nd hand smoke from killing us.
Oh, Sea-04.
Thanks for the discussion, it\'s been awesome.
Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 6 2006 @ 11:34PM