Bernard has confidence in Baltimore

[1978]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012...YCAR/120429929

[ThatGrrl]

I'll be interested in hearing more after Indycar meets with Downforce today, presuming that meeting takes place as mentioned in the article.

[Supertuner]

I see the quote about the Baltimore Sun mentioned as being for abandoning the event. This is a major issue I have with media today. They're a newspaper, why do they have "stances"? Just stick to the news and facts, otherwise journalism. Media with an agenda is a huge peeve of mine. It smacks of being in bed with local politicians with an issue with the race and being a mouth piece for them. Do they realize it completely degrades thier credibility?

So I can assume they will reject any money for adverstising for the race in their paper right?

[Grizzlor]

Because newspapers are controlled by corporations, whose executives sit on boards of other corporations and such. Oh, and they're all whores?

[Maelochs]

Unless, of course, it is an opinion article ... But I can see the reason for some trepidation. Daly has experience running successful street races. The other tow guys worked for Enron and the firm that audited Enron.

[Supertuner]

Maelochs,
Yeah I considered that and am sure it's likely the case they use to justify their position. However, most reputable papers print up an editorial and move on. Based on the fact RB was asked about it I can only assume they've gone beyond and above with their "position".

[goldie19]

I see the quote about the Baltimore Sun mentioned as being for abandoning the event. This is a major issue I have with media today. They're a newspaper, why do they have "stances"? Just stick to the news and facts, otherwise journalism. Media with an agenda is a huge peeve of mine. It smacks of being in bed with local politicians with an issue with the race and being a mouth piece for them. Do they realize it completely degrades thier credibility?

So I can assume they will reject any money for adverstising for the race in their paper right?

Well said...aren't there any 911 calls for them to be editing?

[Supertuner]

Unless, of course, it is an opinion article ... But I can see the reason for some trepidation. Daly has experience running successful street races. The other tow guys worked for Enron and the firm that audited Enron.

I can see that as not a huge credit to them. In their defence A LOT of people worked in these companies and I can't imagine all of them were working the scam. The fact they aren't in jail likely means they were not privy to or acted in the rip off.

And trepidation is to be expected. But, there seems to be univeral agreement that this race can become a tradition ala Long Beach with the right guidance and patience. SOrt of like a driver that has the ability to win that just needs the oppurtunity as opposed to one that will never win no matter what they are given.

[atrackforumfan]

....

[Supertuner]

Well said...aren't there any 911 calls for them to be editing?

That's funny. I get it. That was terrible.

[Supertuner]

Almost every newspaper has an editorial opinion section, usually including the political cartoons, political columnists, and reader letters. The Sun's editorial opinion piece on the BGP is in the "Opinion" section of their web site, under the heading "Our View." Couldn't be any more clear.

I understand this , as stated above. But, there comes a point when "our view" becomes an agenda. And at that point how do you trust what's printed "outside" the editorial page regarding the race? And again if it were a simple editorial piece, why the question to RB?

Did they print an opposing view to "our view" to their editorial? That's also very common in credible editorial columns. Are opposing readers letters printed? Maybe I don't know. <This is just one way an "agenda" is pushed without real journalistic credibility.

[atrackforumfan]

I understand this , as stated above. But, there comes a point when "our view" becomes an agenda.

Is this that point, or are you attempting to discredit the Sun without specifically showing how they've undermined the BGP because of an editorial policy? That doesn't make much sense, unless you're making a further generalization that all reporters hate race cars or somesuch. Similarly, the Mayor's office of Baltimore is a pretty secure slot for the Dems, so it's hard to generalize that the paper is against the race because it's being promoted by a pro-growth Republican mayor.

[BizzyV]

“We saw the same thing in Edmonton last year,” Bernard said. “I think all press is good press.

LOL! Man RB can see the glass half full on anything!

[goldie19]

That's funny. I get it. That was terrible.

The media...."we are the news! We create the news! If you want reporting sign up for twitter"

[SEVista]

Yes, because Baltimore is happening in 2012. Now, move along...nothing to see here.

[skypigeon]

Newspapers have always had editorial slants. That's why in the early days of this country, before radio and TV and Internet, even small towns had multiple papers. If you expect to read a newspaper and get perfectly objective opinion, you will always be disappointed.

The real problem is electronic media is forcing traditional print to either take extreme stances, that it may find and keep an audience; or just go away.

[doitagain]

Just remember, Enron could and did hire a lot of the "best of the best" people in multiple fields. Many of them people like you, or people you'd be proud to know. There were a few bad apples and some bad circumstances that brought it all down, but they were a minority and most went to jail.

[Maelochs]

Couple points: Until about 1900, it was totally understood that each newspaper had its viewpoint and supported certain parties, politicians, and ideas. No one thought it should be any other way (think FOX News and CNBC in print.)

Sulzberger (?) took over the NY Times just before/around the turn of the century and invented the idea of balanced journalism. Even there, absolute truth wasn’t the issue, it was give time to opposing views—within a news article.

Even today many newspapers have distinct trends based on the publisher’s/editor’s views. If those views please enough readers, the paper sells.

The “Golden Age” of “unbiased” journalism has yet to dawn. Most papers in the past 100 years, however, have increasingly tended to keep fact and opinion separate—if only not to be embarrassed by other papers doing more accurate reporting.

Almost every newspaper will publish its election picks in the Opinion section before every election. Do you think those papers who supported Nixon could get away with not reporting Watergate?

Everyone has an opinion. Often, reporters who have been covering an issue since before it was news know a lot more about that issue than anyone else; to whom else would one turn for an informed opinion?

Maybe the folks at the Sun, because they have been following this discussion since long before it became public, really know a lot about it. Maybe they know the real details of who does and doesn’t support it and why, where the money really came from and went to, and what kinds of plans have been announced so far. Surely they know more than we do—what we know, we get from reading their reports (!!!!)

Even supporters of the event can see that the new managing group doesn’t even have a freaking website up, and has no provisions for ticket sales. It is almost May, and these guys have no solid plans for a September event?

Also, people from the Baltimore Sun can no doubt do basic math, like counting how many street races have ever made money—what, have like two percent ever turned out not to be huge drains on the local economy?

Consider that even if 150 K show up for the race, that is 25% of the city’s population. So if the entire crowd was local, three-quarters of the city doesn’t care and shouldn’t have to support the event if it is costing them money that is badly needed elsewhere.

Of course, since the majority of the attendees come from the surrounding DC-Metro region (over 8 million people) (and this is a big selling point) then … an even tinier percentage of those people care, and an even tinier percentage of Baltimore residents care. Which means a larger portion of the people who ended up paying for last year’s event would just as soon it not happen.

Considering that last year’s event was a fiscal flop which cost the city $1.5 million at least, as well as saw a lot of vendors get screwed (which hurts city tax revenue and maybe raises unemployment) and the current management team has spent the past several months doing nothing but arguing, I would say it is the Responsible Position for a newspaper’s editor, to oppose the race. After all, shouldn’t the editor be thinking about All the residents of Baltimore, not just the very small percentage of race fans?

As a race fan, I hope desperately that the new group pulls this off, or maybe someone hires Savoree-Green or some other group which has a clue. It is rare, but Some street races actually do pay off. But if I was really concerned about the finances of my home city, and I saw another potential financial disaster like last year’s in the making, I would probably counsel against it. Even if I was a race fan. After all, my greater responsibility would be to consider All the citizens, not just the one who also like racing.

As for not taking ad dollars … More ignorance. Every paper has separate Ad and editorial departments. If Chevy buys ads, and a Chevy Volt burns up do you think those papers don’t report it? Every paper sells ads well in advance of the news actually happening, and if the paper doesn’t report the news, no one buys the paper so the ads don’t work so the paper can’t sell any more ads.

In fact, it is the independence of the Opinion page, the editorial department, and the ad department that is the foundation of “modern journalism” (which foundation is eroding in some places, granted.)

Accusing people of “having an agenda” purely because THEIR AGENDAS ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS is dishonest—in journalism, it would be bad journalism.

We all have “agendas.” “Agenda” is not a dirty word; it simply means “plan” or “schedule.” Another word is “Mission.” It is the “mission” of most newspapers to serve the information needs of their readers, and in this case, much as I hate to admit it, I’d say that speaking out against the event probably serves the readers better than blindly supporting it even though the last management screwed the city and the current management appears to be a bunch of incompetents.

If you have actual evidence that the Baltimore Sun has a history of opposing the race and has slanted its coverage to try to make the race look bad, please present it. But I have read a few Sun articles about the race, and I haven’t seen any. Please cite sources and include links.

And let’s keep hoping Randy can rope these fools together into a functioning group which makes the race actually work this year. Let’s hope that for race fans And for residents of Baltimore, who actually have to foot the bill if it fails.

Sorry, I cannot seem to find the /Rant Off button.

[Since83]

Bernard has confidence in Baltimore

...and Lotus
...and Terry
...and Brian
...and ISC
...and SMI
...and Milwaukee

[Scuff]

It was also the fault of the Baltimore Sun that vendors got ripped off last year. Baltimore will happen. Not terribly well organized, but it will happen.

[Billy Chin]

Well said...aren't there any 911 calls for them to be editing?

That was a deplorable act by NBC, wasn't it?

[Supertuner]

Is this that point, or are you attempting to discredit the Sun without specifically showing how they've undermined the BGP because of an editorial policy? That doesn't make much sense, unless you're making a further generalization that all reporters hate race cars or somesuch. Similarly, the Mayor's office of Baltimore is a pretty secure slot for the Dems, so it's hard to generalize that the paper is against the race because it's being promoted by a pro-growth Republican mayor.

I understand that and it's a good point. But, I'm biased and admit it. I'm an IICS fan and a fan of the Baltimore race. When I saw RB challenged it put me on the defensive. Also, I've followed this race closely and have read the opposing view points to this race. It's been mostly from people who are wanting the money diverted into their projects. It's not from people against spending money(which would be a valid arguement). They want to spend it for sure just in the way they see fit. WHich mostly includes more hand outs/vote fostering into public programs that provide no upside, all quite the oppsite. With hiring of more unionized workers(which I have no problem with unions) in order to grow their voter roll control and boost union coffers for all the wrong reasons.

The race has allowed for the ACTUAL improvement of infrastructure and once sorted will provide an actual revenue source/prestige builder for the city/local business( actual taxpayers btw) as opposed to more money down the drain to programs that are just revenue drains with no proven potential benefit besides to politicians.

So when I see the local rag putting the screws to RB and having some idea of what is driving it behind the scenes , it smacks of bias(this is what I stated to start with, a slang phrase for IMO).

And there are many organizations these days that exist for the shear fact of keeping media(a generalization for sure) honest. THis isn't because there aren't many people who feel there is a large bias/ agenda driven slant in Media these days. So it's not like my revelation of possible bias is coming from left field.

[Supertuner]

Couple points: Until about 1900, it was totally understood that each newspaper had its viewpoint and supported certain parties, politicians, and ideas. No one thought it should be any other way (think FOX News and CNBC in print.)

Sulzberger (?) took over the NY Times just before/around the turn of the century and invented the idea of balanced journalism. Even there, absolute truth wasn’t the issue, it was give time to opposing views—within a news article.

Even today many newspapers have distinct trends based on the publisher’s/editor’s views. If those views please enough readers, the paper sells.

The “Golden Age” of “unbiased” journalism has yet to dawn. Most papers in the past 100 years, however, have increasingly tended to keep fact and opinion separate—if only not to be embarrassed by other papers doing more accurate reporting.

Almost every newspaper will publish its election picks in the Opinion section before every election. Do you think those papers who supported Nixon could get away with not reporting Watergate?

Everyone has an opinion. Often, reporters who have been covering an issue since before it was news know a lot more about that issue than anyone else; to whom else would one turn for an informed opinion?

Maybe the folks at the Sun, because they have been following this discussion since long before it became public, really know a lot about it. Maybe they know the real details of who does and doesn’t support it and why, where the money really came from and went to, and what kinds of plans have been announced so far. Surely they know more than we do—what we know, we get from reading their reports (!!!!)

Even supporters of the event can see that the new managing group doesn’t even have a freaking website up, and has no provisions for ticket sales. It is almost May, and these guys have no solid plans for a September event?

Also, people from the Baltimore Sun can no doubt do basic math, like counting how many street races have ever made money—what, have like two percent ever turned out not to be huge drains on the local economy?

Consider that even if 150 K show up for the race, that is 25% of the city’s population. So if the entire crowd was local, three-quarters of the city doesn’t care and shouldn’t have to support the event if it is costing them money that is badly needed elsewhere.

Of course, since the majority of the attendees come from the surrounding DC-Metro region (over 8 million people) (and this is a big selling point) then … an even tinier percentage of those people care, and an even tinier percentage of Baltimore residents care. Which means a larger portion of the people who ended up paying for last year’s event would just as soon it not happen.

Considering that last year’s event was a fiscal flop which cost the city $1.5 million at least, as well as saw a lot of vendors get screwed (which hurts city tax revenue and maybe raises unemployment) and the current management team has spent the past several months doing nothing but arguing, I would say it is the Responsible Position for a newspaper’s editor, to oppose the race. After all, shouldn’t the editor be thinking about All the residents of Baltimore, not just the very small percentage of race fans?

As a race fan, I hope desperately that the new group pulls this off, or maybe someone hires Savoree-Green or some other group which has a clue. It is rare, but Some street races actually do pay off. But if I was really concerned about the finances of my home city, and I saw another potential financial disaster like last year’s in the making, I would probably counsel against it. Even if I was a race fan. After all, my greater responsibility would be to consider All the citizens, not just the one who also like racing.

As for not taking ad dollars … More ignorance. Every paper has separate Ad and editorial departments. If Chevy buys ads, and a Chevy Volt burns up do you think those papers don’t report it? Every paper sells ads well in advance of the news actually happening, and if the paper doesn’t report the news, no one buys the paper so the ads don’t work so the paper can’t sell any more ads.

In fact, it is the independence of the Opinion page, the editorial department, and the ad department that is the foundation of “modern journalism” (which foundation is eroding in some places, granted.)

Accusing people of “having an agenda” purely because THEIR AGENDAS ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS is dishonest—in journalism, it would be bad journalism.

We all have “agendas.” “Agenda” is not a dirty word; it simply means “plan” or “schedule.” Another word is “Mission.” It is the “mission” of most newspapers to serve the information needs of their readers, and in this case, much as I hate to admit it, I’d say that speaking out against the event probably serves the readers better than blindly supporting it even though the last management screwed the city and the current management appears to be a bunch of incompetents.

If you have actual evidence that the Baltimore Sun has a history of opposing the race and has slanted its coverage to try to make the race look bad, please present it. But I have read a few Sun articles about the race, and I haven’t seen any. Please cite sources and include links.

And let’s keep hoping Randy can rope these fools together into a functioning group which makes the race actually work this year. Let’s hope that for race fans And for residents of Baltimore, who actually have to foot the bill if it fails.

Sorry, I cannot seem to find the /Rant Off button.

Yes we all have agendas. But we all don't claim to be media either and some of us own it. With out reading one page of the Sun I'll bet 100 dollars they didn't preface their editorial as "we have an agenda and admit it." Or are we just suppose to assume it?

Whats killing me is that I called them out as having an agenda and all opposing view points have seemed to prove(through history lessons and such) that yes, newspaper and media have bias. I know, thats why I said it.

And on the subject of well yeah media is biased and have been for ever. Does that make it right?

[Supertuner]

Couple points: Until about 1900, it was totally understood that each newspaper had its viewpoint and supported certain parties, politicians, and ideas. No one thought it should be any other way (think FOX News and CNBC in print.)

Sulzberger (?) took over the NY Times just before/around the turn of the century and invented the idea of balanced journalism. Even there, absolute truth wasn’t the issue, it was give time to opposing views—within a news article.

Even today many newspapers have distinct trends based on the publisher’s/editor’s views. If those views please enough readers, the paper sells.

The “Golden Age” of “unbiased” journalism has yet to dawn. Most papers in the past 100 years, however, have increasingly tended to keep fact and opinion separate—if only not to be embarrassed by other papers doing more accurate reporting.

Almost every newspaper will publish its election picks in the Opinion section before every election. Do you think those papers who supported Nixon could get away with not reporting Watergate?

Everyone has an opinion. Often, reporters who have been covering an issue since before it was news know a lot more about that issue than anyone else; to whom else would one turn for an informed opinion?

Maybe the folks at the Sun, because they have been following this discussion since long before it became public, really know a lot about it. Maybe they know the real details of who does and doesn’t support it and why, where the money really came from and went to, and what kinds of plans have been announced so far. Surely they know more than we do—what we know, we get from reading their reports (!!!!)

Even supporters of the event can see that the new managing group doesn’t even have a freaking website up, and has no provisions for ticket sales. It is almost May, and these guys have no solid plans for a September event?

Also, people from the Baltimore Sun can no doubt do basic math, like counting how many street races have ever made money—what, have like two percent ever turned out not to be huge drains on the local economy?

Consider that even if 150 K show up for the race, that is 25% of the city’s population. So if the entire crowd was local, three-quarters of the city doesn’t care and shouldn’t have to support the event if it is costing them money that is badly needed elsewhere.

Of course, since the majority of the attendees come from the surrounding DC-Metro region (over 8 million people) (and this is a big selling point) then … an even tinier percentage of those people care, and an even tinier percentage of Baltimore residents care. Which means a larger portion of the people who ended up paying for last year’s event would just as soon it not happen.

Considering that last year’s event was a fiscal flop which cost the city $1.5 million at least, as well as saw a lot of vendors get screwed (which hurts city tax revenue and maybe raises unemployment) and the current management team has spent the past several months doing nothing but arguing, I would say it is the Responsible Position for a newspaper’s editor, to oppose the race. After all, shouldn’t the editor be thinking about All the residents of Baltimore, not just the very small percentage of race fans?

As a race fan, I hope desperately that the new group pulls this off, or maybe someone hires Savoree-Green or some other group which has a clue. It is rare, but Some street races actually do pay off. But if I was really concerned about the finances of my home city, and I saw another potential financial disaster like last year’s in the making, I would probably counsel against it. Even if I was a race fan. After all, my greater responsibility would be to consider All the citizens, not just the one who also like racing.

As for not taking ad dollars … More ignorance. Every paper has separate Ad and editorial departments. If Chevy buys ads, and a Chevy Volt burns up do you think those papers don’t report it? Every paper sells ads well in advance of the news actually happening, and if the paper doesn’t report the news, no one buys the paper so the ads don’t work so the paper can’t sell any more ads.

In fact, it is the independence of the Opinion page, the editorial department, and the ad department that is the foundation of “modern journalism” (which foundation is eroding in some places, granted.)

Accusing people of “having an agenda” purely because THEIR AGENDAS ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS is dishonest—in journalism, it would be bad journalism.

We all have “agendas.” “Agenda” is not a dirty word; it simply means “plan” or “schedule.” Another word is “Mission.” It is the “mission” of most newspapers to serve the information needs of their readers, and in this case, much as I hate to admit it, I’d say that speaking out against the event probably serves the readers better than blindly supporting it even though the last management screwed the city and the current management appears to be a bunch of incompetents.

If you have actual evidence that the Baltimore Sun has a history of opposing the race and has slanted its coverage to try to make the race look bad, please present it. But I have read a few Sun articles about the race, and I haven’t seen any. Please cite sources and include links.

And let’s keep hoping Randy can rope these fools together into a functioning group which makes the race actually work this year. Let’s hope that for race fans And for residents of Baltimore, who actually have to foot the bill if it fails.

Sorry, I cannot seem to find the /Rant Off button.

History, no. Proof they have at least on one occasion yes. An based on reporters quizzing Rb means it's more than a passing issue.

[Nigel Red5]

I see the quote about the Baltimore Sun mentioned as being for abandoning the event. This is a major issue I have with media today. They're a newspaper, why do they have "stances"? Just stick to the news and facts, otherwise journalism. Media with an agenda is a huge peeve of mine. It smacks of being in bed with local politicians with an issue with the race and being a mouth piece for them. Do they realize it completely degrades thier credibility?

So I can assume they will reject any money for adverstising for the race in their paper right?

Because in general, what's left of the Sun these days is a pos rag of a newspaper trying to stay alive on typical sensationalism catering to the few that actually still read it. They were all for it, then they were against it. If Downforce pulls it out, they will be all for it again. Quit reading Dan Rodericks.

[Nigel Red5]

Unless, of course, it is an opinion article ... But I can see the reason for some trepidation. Daly has experience running successful street races. The other tow guys worked for Enron and the firm that audited Enron.

So did a whole lot of folks that were guilty of doing exactly what they were told to do by their superiors... Were either of them implicated in the ENRON scandal in any way? IIRC, both of them lost their jobs Because of the scandal, not because of any role in it.

Reck worked for Dawson at Constellation energy in Baltimore. I don't know how connected they were regarding Enron.

[Supertuner]

Nigel,
I was wondering when you'd show up and set us all straight. Thank You. Like I've said, I hope for the best, for everyone invovled.

[Z28]

Hey automobile racing, remember that?

Bernard has confidence in Baltimore

...and Lotus
...and Terry
...and Brian
...and ISC
...and SMI
...and Milwaukee

Yes Randy is a glass 3/4 full kind of guy and there are a lot of INDYCAR fans who love him even more because he tells them exactly what they want to hear even in the face of a broken glass at his feet.


The Baltimore situation has very little to do with the press or politicians, it's do the people running it have the will to spend and lose money the first couple of years while believing that after three years like their plan forecast they would start making money. Those two partners with Dillon aren't putting their money in as a promotional charity for the city, the hotels and bars, they want to come out with a profit. And what I think is happening is Dillon wants to get Baltimore up and running so he can get Ft. Lauderdale on the schedule. He gets paid for making the event happen and if there ends up not being a profit down the road, hey that's the investors problem, he got his for making it happen. And that is at odds with the money people.

[Supertuner]

Listening to the Indycar show on 1070. Guess what? I'm not alone in the opinion that the Sun in particular has been overly how shall we say "against" the race.

PS I also think they read here to get a pulse of things. Which makes sense. Hi guys!

[lindaw]

Randy always has confidence in everything--we just need to see him experience a successful result from all his ideas. Its been a tough road for Randy and it doesn't look like its getting any smoother. I was once a huge Randy supporter but now I think our rodeos are alittle tougher than those bulls.