Monday, April 20, 2009

Kansas City Star reports on reader feedback on changes at the Kansas City Star

Derek Donovan says readers' reactions to the new Kansas City Star format are all over the map. Click here for Donovan's column.

This is a boilerplate column that newspaper publishers and readers' reps have been doing since newspapers began their decline a few years ago. The "reader feedback" columns always go something like this:

Some readers are not happy that _____________ and ___________ have been dropped from the paper as cost savings measures. It's understandable that some are upset, but the changes were necessary in these tough economic times. But we're happy to report not all the reaction was negative: 80 year old ________________ says he/she has been subscribing for ______ years and would gladly pay more money for the paper.

Hat tip: email


Anonymous said...

“…[several are uneasy] with the fact that the world seems to be turning to the computer and mobile phone for information more and more every day.”
Does he mean like the little old lady in NC that is computer illiterate? Is that the target reader for the Red Star these days? Knock yourselves out on that kind of thinking. My grandmother has her own webpage, and started a good little online business at age 67.

Anonymous said...

But MNI can't sleep with the fish?

Where oh where will I get all my public notices from?

I'd also be so very lost without my daily DNC talking points.

Who will tell me what to think now?

Anonymous said...


AP Analysis: Good for Obama for Knocking Down Arrogant U.S.A.

...and Once again, the AP trots out Mikhail Gorbachev and sets him up as the ideal world leader.

The Associated Press has for years been good for inventing the news out of its own vivid imagination.

But now, not only is the AP inventing news it is inventing an entire national self-image, then batting it down all in an effort to prop up the feckless foreign policy of its messiah Barrack Obama. Obama's "The U.S. Sucks" tour isn't over yet and the AP is loving it.

Anonymous said...

"The U.S. Sucks tour"
We have a president that hates the USA. He has made that clear, as bling, bling Michelle has. Seeing Barry's true agenda should surprise no one.

Anonymous said...

In a Lokeman’s DUI discussion, the comment was made that Lokeman will not receive much of a punishment for driving drunk. It is difficult to believe the KC legal system is that corrupt. However, the selected news of the Scar certainly aids and abets corruption. I just watched the video again, and either she is drunk or insane. After being shown she has only three tires, Lokeman says, “Oh my God, when did that happen? Perhaps if she claims insanity she can keep her license. Anyone that missed the video, it is a classic, and seeing the beast get handcuffed is seeing some sort of justice, at least.

Anonymous said...

kerry resurrects Buggy Whip Industry Preservation hearings

US Senate panel to look at future of newspapers

Senator John Kerry will hold hearings in Washington next week on the financial problems facing the newspaper industry, as dwindling advertising dollars push many US papers to the brink of closure.

John Altevogt said...

For another look at how The Star pimps for corruption read:

Can you imagine what would happen if they created a program to make the inner city green? The green Rep. Cleaver is interested in has nothing to do with the environment.

For those of you not familiar with Lewis' work. Mr Diuguid was the columnist who alerted America to the fact that the Republicans were using the term "socialist" as a code word to inform the country that Obama was black. Who knew?

Anonymous said...

Lokeman’s floating face is finally removed from the Star web page!!!
@ Will Not Be Televised
“It is worth noting that over the weekend [ after one very public arrest on suspicion of DUI; one very, very private legal hearing, and 113 days after she last penned a column for The Star ] Rhonda Lokeman’s visage quietly disappeared from The Star’s web presence.”

Anonymous said...

Someone should have been reining Lokeman in for her simple lack of good taste; her crude remarks were offensive. Had she not been an untouchable black writer, and her spineless husband the boss, she would not have been allowed to spew her venom. The lie that she had thousands in circulation numbers was just ridiculous. The whole KC Star deal was a sham. She brought this misfortune on herself. I don’t feel one bit sorry for either one of them. The good news will be when they leave KC.

Anonymous said...

John A.,
You will enjoy the ‘Will Not Be Televised’ article about the legal system in KC and the Beast.

“Yep, the whole thing stinks, doesn’t it? It appears the fix was in on this one from the moment Zieman bailed out his wife. And this is the every day “law” that Kevin and Margaret practice in Kansas City - there’s nothing shiny and uplifting about it. It’s looks to be dirty and favor-laden, no different on it’s face than those not-so-long ago days when you’d slip someone a C-note in the corridors of the Court building to make your case go away.”

Anonymous said...

One reader says he doesn’t really use the Star’s stock market info, he just likes the feel of the newspaper in his hand. I guess inky hands and day old market returns turn some folks on, but I wouldn’t build a future on it. The web offers endless ways to check your stocks, companies, and anything else you need at a click. Good grief, these pitiful replies must come from Star employees, or, a former employee looking at their pension security.

Anonymous said...

Good grief, these pitiful replies must come from Star employees, or, a former employee looking at their pension security.


No it can't be pensioners. We have an annual luncheon and it is understood that the last place you want financial information is from the Star.

They even lie about their own closing prices and finding anything about what is going on at the Star is impossible to find out from the Star.

John Altevogt said...

12:26 is an excellent site and the point about court in KCMO is a very valid one.

In Kansas, if you want to discuss diversion you can contact the prosecutor's office either before court, or when you get there and discuss your case.

In KCMO (where I-70 is used as a revenue enhancement project) you are not allowed to talk to the prosecutor unless you hire a shyster, particularly a shyster from the list of shysters they maintain.

This is the one thing I've learned about the metro area when the town is as corrupt as KC is, virtually all institutions are corrupt. Charities, foundations, Chambers, newspapers, courts, you name it, they're all used in the process.

Community college boards have access to tons of discretionary funding that can go to the right vendors, city councils give zoning upgrades to the right law firms, charities give awards to the right people and the chamber supports the right candidates as do the newspapers. Foundations have tons of money that can be parked in the right banks, perhaps at the discretion of the donors.

Everything is turned into a cash cow to be milked. The everyday citizen usually can't afford to get the kind of decision Rhonda got, but certainly the very cooperative publisher of The Star can.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a newspaper that endorsed a sitting judge against a reform candidate when the central issue in the campaign was the very credible allegations of his being drunk on the bench. You don't think Rhonda got a sweetheart, home-court decision? Please.

Anonymous said...

John, is everyone corrupt except you?

Anonymous said...

Typical liberal on review -
6:54 AM says,
“John, is everyone corrupt except you?
Man you are so lame, you can’t stand anyone else having a say contrary to the corruption you accept as regular Democrats in action. You either don’t live in KC, or you spout the same old garbage on cue. Typical closed minded liberal, bow to Barry, but watch your backside.

John Altevogt said...

Yes, The Star is corrupt.

Out of all the posts I've made you weasels have yet to refute one point that I've made. Instead you just make stupid comments.

Are you prepared to refute the facts in my post, yes, or no?

Another thing I note is that you wait until a whole day goes by before you challenge them so that when you're embarrassed, no one sees it.

Ad hominem attacks don't cut it, but they are typical of the illogical crap we get from The Star.

Now to answer your question, in a city as corrupt as Kansas City is (according to George magazine it's in the top 10 in the country.) just about any institution that can be used to maintain that corruption is used. That includes charities, politicians, foundations, school boards, PTAs, you name it.

Fact: The Star endorsed a judge accused of being drunk on the bench.

Fact: Art Brisbane was the co-chair on the board of a "charity" that was packed with the members of an anti-evangelical hate group and while he was the Co-Chair the charity got caught with its pants down engaging in blatantly political activities and its ED had to step down.

Now that I've responded, why don't you punks provide some news for a change. ANd again, open any door you want.

Anonymous said...

**Another thing I note is that you wait until a whole day goes by before you challenge them so that when you're embarrassed, no one sees it.**

There you go again -- jumping to conclusions.

John, some of us have a job, a family, and a life away from a computer. We don't obsessively check McClatchy Watch, waiting for someone to say something we disagree with so we can call names, assign labels, and speculate about ulterior motives.

Now who's embarrassed? Probably not you.

John Altevogt said...

Is there some point you'd like to refute? Is there an argument to be made? No on either account.

I've made some pretty brazen statements on here about the integrity of The Star's endorsements and it's connections to KCMO's corrupt establishment and yet not one point is refuted. All I get are intellectually impotent trolls who obsess on 2 day old threads.

Anonymous said...

Well, John, the fact that you responded proved that at least two of us "obsess" on two-day-old (now three-day-old) threads.

I'm sure there are psychological reasons relating to your childhood upbringing, family situation, or real or perceived failures in life that you can't disagree with someone without calling names and assigning motives. Opps, I just fell into your trap by jumping to conclusions. Shame on me.