SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS: Is a blog the same as a newspaper?

The NA Confidential blog (that's short for "weblog") turned 15 years of age on October 22, 2019.

Did you know that NAC never once has been used to line a birdcage or drain the grease from fish and chips? That's because it's an internet blog, not a newspaper.

But what's the difference between an internet blog and an online newspaper?

Bizarrely, all these years later it's a question still not widely grasped. Scott Clavenna, CEO of Greentech Media, Inc., answered this query at the Quora website on April 20, 2011.

A blog can be anything - the voice of one writer or many, who is not strictly held to any codes of professional journalism, but could certainly be as good and reliable as one. An online newspaper typically assumes the writers adhere to journalistic standards - double-sourcing critical assertions in an article, allowing people or companies an opportunity to respond to assertions, adhering to a code of ethics in reporting, such as the Society of Professional Journalists's code. A blog may voluntarily adhere to all of the above, but typically calling a publication a newspaper implies they are focused on "news" and therefore should assume the standards of reporting.

Of course, historically newspapers were printed on paper and priced with the objective of making a profit. Most still are, although this business model is evolving in ways both good and bad.

Tell me more: "Bail Out Journalists. Let Newspaper Chains Die."

Since October 22, 2004, the NA Confidential blog has enjoyed only one source of investment: my time, precious or otherwise.

For fifteen and a half years, NAC has been forever pro bono and resolutely profit-free.

Not a single advertisement has been sold, ever. Not one.

Given the sea of booze I've had to consume in order to document the perpetually underachieving history of New Albany -- the Open Air Museum of Ignorance, Superstition and Backwardness -- you might say I've actually lost a great deal of money over the years blogging.

Oh, and something else: the outside world has resisted every effort to transform NA Confidential into an anthology of good writing with multiple contributors, which was one of my goals at the outset.

I suppose there are numerous reasons for this, including the ludicrous inefficiency of the free Blogger platform, my disinterest in spending money on something that's free, the writing and reading habits of the vicinity, and the tendency since the late Noughts for people to post everything long or short on social media.

Since 2004, there have been almost 15,000 posts here, and all but a few hundred of them -- probably somewhere around 5% of the total -- have been authored by me. The offer remains open, as it always has: Join me in writing for zero remuneration, see the world and be threatened with reprisals by City Hall.

None of this should be mistaken for the concession that as a blogger, I'm any less skilled in terms of writing as (for example) a guest columnist for a local chain newspaper.

Been there, done that (2009 - 2011). I had to relinquish my column to run for office in the primary. I was told I'd get it back if I lost, which I did -- then I didn't.

Rather, the overall point is simply this: blogs and newspapers are apples and oranges, and do not viable comparisons make. Let's ask this word column's legal bagel namesake for a closing point of view.

Q. Shane, are blogs and newspapers the same?

A: Ha ha. When's the last time we purchased thousands of dollars in advertising from a stupid blog?

Previously:

Hanson's Folly: There remains a complete absence of diversity among regular News and Tribune columnists.

Reisz, City Hall, and the only truthful argument: As historic preservationists, we must save this building at any cost, and limitless costs are what government is all about -- so we must act now.

The conversion of the (a) dilapidated, (b) neglected, and (c) poorly maintained Reisz Furniture Building into a new City Hall seems to be inevitable. The deals have been cut, and the votes secured.

This "move to protect our history" will come to fruition at a total cost of at least $8.5 million to the city, and it's also highly likely that during one of many backroom deals leading to this juncture, $390,000 was passed by the city to Denton Floyd to buy the structure from Schmitt Furniture -- which City Hall itself admits is responsible for the dilapidation, neglect and poor maintenance.

The city's propagandists used those words, not me.

David Barksdale, a Republican, has carried the ball for this idea, as joined by numerous other pillars of the community, most of whom are Democrats. Because proponents sense that historic preservation alone won't play to the 25% of eligible voters who'll bother turning out in 2019, they've buttressed their case with other arguments.

The argument from civic patriotism

If we're to believe Mayor Jeff Gahan, the city of New Albany (read: the Democratic Party) is engaged in a Great Civil War with Floyd County government (or,the GOP), making it imperative for the municipality to one-up future mayoral opponent Mark Seabrook's team at every opportunity. As such, how can we allow city officials to labor in a veritable shambles on the third floor of a county-owned building?

It's worse than the Bulldogs being beaten by Floyd Central, and it has to stop.

Rebuttal: Seriously? Are we still in high school?

The argument from efficiency

Last year, when a project designed non-transparently and completely out of public view was announced, we were told the savings would be tremendous; instead of a quarter-million annually to occupy the City-County Building, we'd pay just a bit over $300,000 per year to occupy the Reisz on a rent-to-own basis.

This estimate has risen steadily to $570,000 per year; we're pledging TIF bonds and engaging in even more backroom chicanery to make even these inflated numbers work.

Meanwhile, no other options have been explored, no other buildings considered, and as yet, it has not been explained exactly why local government must quadruple its work space in the age of the microchip.

As rebuttal, it cannot be efficient to consider only one choice, then bend reality to suit this single outcome -- and just imagine how $570,000 each year might address a genuine need, like affordable housing for people, as opposed to luxury work spaces for government.

The argument for "putting skin in the game"

According to Barksdale, entrepreneurs and private investors have poured somewhere around $60 million into downtown during the past decade, an estimate he views as low, probably rightly.

Barksdale uses this number as the basis for his contention that by investing $8.5 million over 15 years into the rehabilitation of a single downtown building in need, so as to relocate an existing entity a full four blocks from one site to another, while at the same time taking the Reisz building off the tax rolls and deploying economic development resources to facilitate the needs of government, all of it taken together proves conclusively that City Hall is putting "skin in the game" (his quote).

Simply stated, this is sheer hokum.

To repeat, no other options have been considered. Councilman Scott Blair has sensibly suggested that "putting skin in the game" would be more sensible and effective if considered differently: working together, mayor and council might prioritize the Reisz building's rehabilitation, devote economic development funds and subsidies to enticing the private sector, keep the building on tax rolls and do, in effect, what already was done to incentivize the Breakwater, among others.

Yes, we've debated the efficacy of subsidies in the past, but clearly Blair is correct. A few hundred thousand to leverage the Reisz's salvation is far less than $8.5 million, freeing funding to be used for numerous other projects, not just one, or establishing grassroots programs for small business.

AND THIS IS THE POINT, FOLKS.

The Reisz City Hall project is based on a demonstrably false overall plea, this being an argument from the urgency of a single possibility -- a want rather than a need:

The only way municipal government can "help" downtown is by means of this single historic preservation project -- and time is running out, so if we don't agree immediately, there'll be no other chance, ever again.

This is bullshit, plain and simple, as demonstrated here today.

Unfortunately, one after the other, downtown stakeholders have marched to the lectern to repeat the falsehood.

(Note that there has been no wave of advocacy whatever from the city's neighborhoods and business districts outside the center; perhaps the single best alternative voiced thus far is the Bookseller's idea to move City Hall to the moribund Colonial Manor shopping center on Charlestown Road.) 

Even worse, many of those in alignment with Barksdale and Gahan have been independent business operators, and to them I say:

Small biz peeps, I've experienced the pain, and I know exactly how you feel, but you need to look more closely.

If local government can help at all, it cannot help by devoting money with a myriad of potential uses to a single expensive initiative that primarily benefits local government itself.

If the Reisz building disappeared tomorrow (as I'm sure Gahan has threatened to facilitate if he doesn't get his way), then your daily issues would remain, as they were, unchanged -- and this also will be the outcome if the City Hall move actually occurs. It's never this one big thing; it's many smaller things.

The fact that community pillars aren't speaking of other options is a cynical and unforgivable diversion. There are many, except the fix is in -- and this fix has NOTHING to do with your betterment.

However, there is one solitary non-contradictory truthful argument in favor of spending $8.5 million to restore the Reisz building and move City Hall to it.

As historic preservationists, we must save this building at any cost, and limitless costs are what government is all about -- so we must act now.

In the end, this is all they have.

I don't know about you, but it's not enough for me.

Support for two way streets still running strong.

With 220 votes now cast in Develop New Albany's survey, support for two-way streets downtown remains at 74%, a level that has remained steady from the start. City Hall believes there is little public interest in the street grid issue, which if true, must be considered a positive; after all, "If you're not against us, you're for us." Survey results may hint otherwise, and suggest that the word is spreading.

My favorite voter comment to date:

I do not think two way streets would be good for Downtown New Albany. They are a part of the character and charm of downtown. If you can't read a sign to tell which way to go, then you shouldn't be driving!

One-way streets as an indicator of character and charm? Interstate highways are charming, too, especially when the semi rigs move adjacent to each other going up a steep grade. I find sewage treatment plants to bear a certain artistic symmetry -- and mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all.

Seriously: I'm told that a street study is virtually a done deal, as sought by the mayor and financed by Redevelopment. In my opinion, it is crucial that advocates of two-way streets be prepared with professional testimony capable of being used in support or rebuttal, the latter lest the same old road engineering cadre end up performing the study. In terms of old school road engineering, garbage in ... and you know the rest.

As I talk about this issue and listen to viewpoints, apart from the expected reaction of "the mere thought of change is making my head explode," the typical response goes something like this:

"Of course Pearl and Bank should be two ways, but the diagonal parking spaces and median on Market are problems that make me dizzy, and while I can see two way streets being effective in a larger sense, they can't change anything about access to I-64 during an hour each morning and afternoon when it matters, and why would neighborhoods care about arterial streets, anyway, when it makes it quicker to get home? Other than that, we're with you."

In short: Contradictions galore, though not outright opposition. This is good, I think. A big part of effective argumentation is expecting what's coming from the other side, and being able to answer it. The single best thing advocates might do now would be to organize a media blitz around the appearance of a personage like Jeff Speck, but he's pricey and scheduling would be hard. Conversely, then, it's all about us and our ability to keep making this case and not letting it rest.