Monday, January 18, 2010

City Paper Back in the (Occasional) Editorial Business

Posted by Bruce Barry on Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM

click to enlarge dudereadspaper.jpg
Today's City Paper editorial on the convention center is the first unsigned house editorial the CP has run (as best we can tell) in almost a year. For the last 11 months there has been a steady stream of in-house and guest commentary, but no editorials. The paper had been editorially active up until the dismissal of executive editor Clint Brewer in February 2009. The last published editorial before today's appeared on Feb. 12, 2009, one day before Brewer's departure.

The revival of the CP's editorial voice comes just a week after Stephen George took over as the paper's new editor. George tells Pith that readers shouldn't expect house editorials as a regular feature. "We won't be running editorials representing the newsweekly's position every week," he says, but the paper will "weigh in on issues of major civic concern."

Another development in the SouthComm orbit is Liz Garrigan's return to a contributing editor position. Last October SouthComm CEO Chris Ferrell asked Garrigan to take on a temporary role as interim executive editor with responsibility for the company's three flagship media properties--The City Paper, Nashville Post, and the Scene. Now, with editors in place for each news organ, Garrigan returns to the contributing role originally envisioned, which involves work as a columnist and editorial adviser.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (18)

Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

I'm sure George developed a very thorough understanding of the "issue of major civic concern" at hand in his two weeks in the city. Bravo!

report   
Posted by Freddie O'Connell on January 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Who is on the editorial board, anyway?

report   
Posted by Freddie O'Connell on January 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM

So, who composes this editorial voice, exactly, do you know?
I have no doubt that the convention center is going to happen. I just think it's hilarious that, at a moment in the city when kids can't get school books until they're almost a month into classes, when parts of downtown had to be shut down all last week to deal with our hundred year old infrastructure, when we face an enormous budget shortfall, when people who work for the city are losing their jobs, the paper says, basically, "Well, if we have no bread, let us eat cake."

report   
Posted by Aunt B. on January 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Aunt B,
Tax revenue that will go to pay for the MCC cannot be used for a single purpose that you list.
First, state law designates that tax revenue for the MCC.
Second, the tax revenue comes from business generated by the MCC. If Nashville doesn't build the MCC, then it doesn't get that business. Obviously, it then wouldn't get the tax revenue from that business.
Claiming that this tax revenue could be used for other purposes is patently false. It's also a tactic that the MCC opponents have shown no shame in using.

report   
Posted by Kevin (NotSo) Sharp on January 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Kevin, yes, I know that and you know that. But imagine, for a moment, how that's going to play out to struggling voters.
"Why did you vote to spend my tax money on a convention center when my kid didn't have school books for a month and my husband got laid off?"
"Well, ma'am, it's very complex. Money for the convention center could only go to the convention center..."
"Why?"
"It's a state law."
"Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of."
I mean, please, most voters are not going to want to hear that crap.
I'm not opposed to the center. I'm not for it. I thought it was a done deal the minute they decided on it unless Gaylord could come up with something big enough to derail it, which they obviously have not.
But for proponents to act like people who haven't been paying attention to the intricacies of this whole thing are going to be okay with this is just a little hilarious.
It's fine with me. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another.
But I'm a little baffled and amused that the pro-convention center people having considered how this is going to play out public-relations wise.
I hope for y'all's sake that there are a lot of jobs created very quickly.

report   
Posted by Aunt B. on January 18, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Who is on the editorial board, anyway?
Given that editorials will be irregular, it appears at this early stage to be a loosely coalesced collection of the paper's editors rather than a formal 'board' as such.

report   
Posted by bb on January 18, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Hmm. So, can anyone just declare themselves a member of the editorial board, then?
And what kind of power would an editorial board member have?
For instance, could a self-appointed editorial board member (perhaps a charming, yet troublesome Pith blogger) decree that George and Lind had to have daily jello wrestling matches?
Because I think I could drum up some public support for that.

report   
Posted by Aunt B. on January 18, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Will I be able to expense my dry-cleaning bill?

report   
Posted by JR on January 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Don't fly in the face of decades of jello wrestling tradition, JR. You'll have a bikini, like every other jello wrestler and those can just be washed in the sink.
I am concerned about the bow tie. I guess I'll approve dry-cleaning expenses for your bow ties.

report   
Posted by Aunt B. on January 18, 2010 at 4:29 PM

"Bikinis and Bow Ties" is a good name for a band.

report   
Posted by JR on January 18, 2010 at 4:40 PM

They could open for "Jell-O Wrestling Expense Report."

report   
Posted by Aunt B. on January 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Those bowties don't dry clean themselves.

report   
Posted by faintgraylines on January 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM

There are five editors listed on the masthead of today's City Paper.
Stephen George - Editor
Vincent Troia - Managing Editor
Geert De Lombaerde - Business Editor
Sherry Phillips - News/Online Editor
Dana Kopp Franklin - Assistant Editor
If the editorial voice of the CP is a "loosely coalesced collection of the paper's editors" which of the above were in the "collection" this time?
Was anyone else other than the above involved?

report   
Posted by The Chairman on January 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Chris Ferrell. You forgot the publisher.

report   
Posted by Anonymous on January 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Now hold on - I thought Kopp Franklin was only in charge of the Bites blog.

report   
Posted by foodle on January 19, 2010 at 8:12 AM

...decree that George and Lind had to have daily jello wrestling matches?
Oooh. Could you throw Liz into the mix please?

report   
Posted by Emmett Flatus on January 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Keep up the wonderful writing. I enjoyed reading your blog. Thanks

report   
Posted by ErikOrganic on February 4, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Most of the pix on the bathing suit model seem to be beautiful. Realize that you have performed a great job addressing modern fashions for 2010 and beyond. The summertime will tend to be right here before all of us know it and also we tend to will almost all be in the market for swimsuits like the the ones in those ınformation. Sports Illustrated basically came out with the bathing suit edition and we will just about all be struggling to find bikinis which includes bikiniss of your actual story.

report   
Posted by Fred Asplin on February 5, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

Top Topics in
Pith in the Wind

Politics (64)


Phillips (43)


Legislature (27)


Arts and Entertainment (20)


Film (19)


Sports (18)


Law and Order (13)


Media (13)


Red State Update (9)


Education (8)


All contents © 1995-2012 City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation