Flannery, I have learned from personal experience, is the biggest liar in San Diego. What makes it somewhat comical is the fact that he is not too bright. One lie in particular was easy to prove and he never even realized it. Anyone who accepts his word as gospel will be sorely disappointed.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 10:19 am

I hope the public will be able to tell the difference between noise and news. The expense and logistics of a print operation certainly limited the marketplace, but at least those who got in had to establish some credibility and had something to lose. Does that mean only print can be meaningful? Salon, Slate, Voice all have proven you don't have to be in print to be credible and have high standards. Still, expect the transition to be extremely painful and filled with lots of misinformation as it all shakes out...

Posted by Noise vs. news | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 1:15 pm

Having been a newsmaker myself, I see how it gets reported in print, and I laugh. The paper often gets it just as wrong as any blogger. That is the sad truth. The editors, editorial slant, and miscommunication are a function of humanity, not the medium.

Posted by Mojo | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 1:35 pm

I love to lounge around on Sunday mornings and read the newspaper that was delivered to my doorstep at 6am. Other than that, I'm an internet guy. With so much nformation from so many sources so quickly, it's up to me to discern fact from fiction, and figure out who the crackpots are.

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 3:16 pm

So you are proud the Voice doesn't make a profit, but who is paying the salaries? That is, who is calling the tune if it isn't the broad market place? The "Not for Profit" moniker doesn't for one second guarantee objective reporting. In politics we have learned that full disclosure of the source of the money coming to campaigns is an imperative. "Not for Profit" is no substitute for full, timely, and accurate financial disclosure. Do I dare hold my breath?

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 3:42 pm

I have to agree with Edgar here on Flannery's bias.I've seen a lot of his posts that are simply untrue.Alas, he gives no forum for comments from the peanut gallery on his blog.I'll let you make the link between Flannery's half-truths and the fact that he's Aguirre's "trusted outlet".

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 6:26 pm

Hey Bruce, you demonstrate breathtaking ignorance about the very basics regarding corporations: non-profit organizations are incorporated under the state of California and under the Federal government of the USA. These corporations trade in the right to pocket profits for the right to accept donations that are tax-deductible for the philanthropists. This system is closely monitored by the IRS quarterly and annually, as well as the Secretary of State of California. There is also required oversight by a legally bound board of directors whose members are annually filed in legal forms with the State and Feds. The board oversees the company on behalf of the government and the greater community, and they are legally and financially responsible for the organization. They oversee staff, their operations, salaries and effort to pursue the mission of the corporation.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 6:33 pm

cont'd - You may like to know the pursuit of the mission is in place of the pursuit of profits, and that's why we mostly appreciate the good works of non-profits since they are for the public benefit, not just the greasy pockets of profiteers. And, you may like to know that healthy non-profits run in the black, accruing more income than expenses, and the balance is put back into the corporation by operations or endowment growth. Non-profits grow because they are able to accrue income. //For example, regarding the health industry, the issue that causes a big stir is the traditional non-profit model for hospitals vs. the new for-profit version -- the former is driven by a mission to benefit the public, the latter is driven to profit shareholders who don't care about your Auntie's health. The voiceofsandiego.org is mission driven to benefit the public, not David Copley!

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 6:45 pm

is it interesting that the UT is having a job fair at the concourse on Jan 29

Posted by billy g | reply to this comment
January 17, 2008 7:15 pm

By his blog you mean link

Posted by By His Blog | reply to this comment
January 18, 2008 9:01 am

Come on Edgar...deliver the goods what exactly is your personal experience? It's time to share. You can do it. It's ok. We are all here to listen. I'm listening......pleas help yourself and help all of us at the same time.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
January 18, 2008 9:42 am

The story was broken by Barry Jantz over on Red County San Diego (www.redcounty.com).

Posted by Scott Graves | reply to this comment
January 18, 2008 10:37 am

Your choice is quite appropriate. In speaking with a managing editor of a (very) local paper, I noted how much attention he gave to the changing ways of journalism. Judging from recent events in the industry, it seems that internet news sources will take up the role that newspapers have traditionally held as your site affirms. How the UT approaches this problem throughtout the year will be intriguing to say the least.

Posted by MW | reply to this comment
January 18, 2008 11:52 am

One very important benefit of a local newspaper being owned by a large newspaper chain is that the bottom line for large corporations is the most important criteria, rather than the ideological tilt of member newspapers. In a large corporate media operation, you have more checks and balances on the power of editors and publishers, than in family-owned, private (secret) publications. In family papers, there is a much greater likelihood that the publisher will set the ideological agenda for the paper. The private publisher has the money; he has the power. He will try to perpetuate this position of power and influence.

Posted by Greg Duch | reply to this comment
January 19, 2008 4:47 pm

Maybe if you updated your page more often and had more fresh articles you could really take a nice chunk of the market. Until you offer more regularly updated fresh stories, you'll remain just a nice sideshow. The UT killed itself by breaking their union and then abandoning it's traditional editorial slant.

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
January 19, 2008 11:05 pm

I agree with Joe. What originally promised to be a fresh new voice for information and opinion has developed into a stagnant backwater. You need fresh news and innovative opinion every day, including weekends, but the Voice seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Weekdays are becoming more like the weekend instead of the other way around. Maybe you cannot do it. Maybe it is impractical to think that a non-profit can fill such a role, but unless you try, we'll never know.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
January 21, 2008 8:25 am

The Edgar, what do you know. The voiceofsandiego.org is tracked and interviewed by other major papers across the country for its new approach to journalism, and in just a few years, it has grown from nothing into a credible online paper. Only a waning curmudgeon would snipe at a young non-profit that's just getting started -- no wonder you hide behind an anonymous pseudonym. // While there is considerable coverage of key events in San Diego, the staff are to be commended for their focus on quality over quantity: their editorial judgment keeps the yellow journalism out...Now if we can just deal with the few yellow-bellied anonymous commenters who hide their identity solely to avoid shame.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
January 21, 2008 8:13 pm

The Voice seemed to get its start when all the City issues were coming to a head. Much of that has died down and so has the impact of the Voice of San Diego. I used to check it daily and during the day to see what they had dug up. Now I'm down to once a week or so, maybe. As far as the UT, I have never been happy with that paper since they merged the Union and the Tribune. I loved the Tribune. The Union-Tribune never measured up to the evening paper. I really don't care what time of day the paper comes if it is a quality paper. But it just gets worse and worse. Pretty soon every section it going to be four pages long with two of them ads!

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
January 22, 2008 11:28 pm

Again, 100% agreement -- this time with Ann. I miss the days of the SD Union and the SD Evening Tribune. Today's misch-mosch is not fit to line my bird's cage (I don't want him picking up any weird ideas), although I'm sure it's perfectly fine for catching all the dreck generated in Christopher Hall's cage.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
January 23, 2008 10:18 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.