Same planet, worlds apart

We actually did wind up paying a visit to the NAA convention, as we were looking for vendors to supply one piece of technology we need. The thing that struck me was that among the myriad exhibitors, there were fewer than 10% that would be useful at all in our business. Not that these folks aren't good at what they do -- but those products and services have no meaning in a world where online is primary and circulation isn't a key metric for ad sales. (Presentation notes from the conference are now available online.)

Then comes this article from the AJR, suggesting that the DMN may have kowtowed to Joe Barton:

Since last spring, the few references to Barton on the editorial page have been much more respectful in tone. Readers active in air quality issues have complained, in letters to the editor and on their Web sites, about the perceived change.

Although the News had favored Barton in past elections, many hoped the paper would come out against him this past fall. O'Leary told me that the journalists on the editorial board wanted to recommend a vote against Barton. "Keven Willey ran the idea up the corporate flagpole," O'Leary says. "The higher-ups shot it down."

Willey says she is "not at liberty to disclose the arguments and positions taken by individuals that culminate in our collaborative board view."

Editorial board? A deliberative body writing opinion pieces? Running opinion ideas up a corporate flagpole? Collaborative board view?

I know that's tradition and SOP at many daily papers, but I just don't get it, man. I just don't get it.