This blog is mainly about the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company. But I also post about current events, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, politics, anything else that grabs my attention. Take a look around this blog, hope you enjoy it.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
How to weaken the influence of a readers' rep
Should Kansas City Star readers' rep Derek Donovan be moonlighting on the restaurant critic beat and the celebrity gossip beat?
Hearne Christopher says NO, and explains why here. . . .
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Derrick Donovan has never represented a reader to this day. He makes excuses for the KC Star. That is what he does. He judges no one but readers that complain.
He is a PR hack and a very dishonest one that has no influence over anyone, anywhere. He is also the librarian. If not for this, he wouldn't have a job at all.
I doubt DD has ever been allowed to write anything all that critical of the KC Red Star. Why bother at all? When you think of some of the talent that was kicked to the curb, while a yes-man continues to stink up the joint, makes me think he could only be a qualified food critic for a roach cart.
SACBEE departed ways with their "Ombudsman" many moons ago. The various ones they had were just shills for the publisher. But you could always count on it being a good hearty laugh for the reader. Shilling is hard!! It was a total waste of money as it was used at the SACBEE. I haven't heard anyone ask to have the SACBEE "Ombudsman" reinstated. As they were used...none are missed. And we also know there are no conditions existing at the SACBEE that would require the use of an "Ombudsman".
4:28 Yes it is. The flaw with Hearne's argument is that Derek no longer has any credibility. He started coming unglued around the turn of the year when multiple readers discovered the abusive patterns in Derek's behavior, including inappropriate communications and posted them on Derek's blog and beneath his columns.
In response, Derek deleted posts left and right that dealt with his misconduct and deceitful behavior. That was followed with blog entries and columns that were insulting and demeaning to those who were consistent critics of he and The Star.
Since then his answers have become even more company oriented and few bother to contact him on any significant issue knowing that his responses will simply not be honest.
The irony here is that I am personally unaware of anyone at The Star who has engaged in more directly abusive behavior towards the consumer than Donovan and yet Fannin and Zeiman continue to allow him to hold a position that he is clearly unqualified for.
10 comments:
Derrick Donovan has never represented a reader to this day. He makes excuses for the KC Star. That is what he does. He judges no one but readers that complain.
He is a PR hack and a very dishonest one that has no influence over anyone, anywhere. He is also the librarian. If not for this, he wouldn't have a job at all.
I wonder if any of the local restaurants specialize in crow.
Derrick Donovan is absolutely useless, IMO. I just wonder what an absolutely useless human being gets paid?
I doubt DD has ever been allowed to write anything all that critical of the KC Red Star. Why bother at all? When you think of some of the talent that was kicked to the curb, while a yes-man continues to stink up the joint, makes me think he could only be a qualified food critic for a roach cart.
An "Ombudsman" or "Readers Representative" has always been a nullity. No one can legitimately critique an entity that provides sustenance.
Walter Abbott
SACBEE departed ways with their "Ombudsman" many moons ago. The various ones they had were just shills for the publisher. But you could always count on it being a good hearty laugh for the reader. Shilling is hard!! It was a total waste of money as it was used at the SACBEE. I haven't heard anyone ask to have the SACBEE "Ombudsman" reinstated. As they were used...none are missed. And we also know there are no conditions existing at the SACBEE that would require the use of an "Ombudsman".
Is this the same guy that harasses the paper's customers by phone when they complain?
Was he asked to moonlight? Or did he happen to go to a restaurant and decided to write about his findings and submit it to the powers that be?
I seriously doubt that he was asked to do it, and it seems more like he just did it on his own, and someone liked his review.
Enough said.
4:28 Yes it is. The flaw with Hearne's argument is that Derek no longer has any credibility. He started coming unglued around the turn of the year when multiple readers discovered the abusive patterns in Derek's behavior, including inappropriate communications and posted them on Derek's blog and beneath his columns.
In response, Derek deleted posts left and right that dealt with his misconduct and deceitful behavior. That was followed with blog entries and columns that were insulting and demeaning to those who were consistent critics of he and The Star.
Since then his answers have become even more company oriented and few bother to contact him on any significant issue knowing that his responses will simply not be honest.
The irony here is that I am personally unaware of anyone at The Star who has engaged in more directly abusive behavior towards the consumer than Donovan and yet Fannin and Zeiman continue to allow him to hold a position that he is clearly unqualified for.
Maybe they're going French. I read an article yesterday about Obama using a "Food Taster" on his trip to France.
It would seem appropriate for Zieman to employ his own piss boy to deal with dissent.
Post a Comment