Reporter Roundup – 5/07/2007
Continuing the ongoing series, here are some highlights from the 5/6/2007 edition of our local paper, The Hoboken Reporter.
The guest correspondent is out of town, and it’s again 411’s job to shed some light on his viewpoints on this weeks paper. In spite of the whole Arts & Music Festival, I still have some gumption left to spew out some more observations.
Here’s my take on this weeks edition, which frankly irritated me for some reason:
“Hoboken Cavalry”: While I appreciate our police force and have no opposition to the mounted division (they’re much needed when cars can’t drive through the rampant flooding), they ran a “PR” piece of how they chased a perpetrator by “weaving around corners and darting in and out of traffic at speeds of 20mph”. This could have easily just been included on the police blotter, but I suppose it’s Hoboken’s version of an L.A. high-speed pursuit.
Although the spree of Dry Cleaner robberies in the SW area of town should have some residents and shop-owners concerned.
Candidates Forums: There was a reason there was minimal follow-up coverage here on 411. Because nothing astounding came of this “political bubble bath” of a forum, and I doubt this changed more than six people’s voting decisions.
Right away, the political ads really dominated the pages. 18 ads all together. I understand all the hoopla and know that each candidate is trying to convey a certain “message” to undecided voters. But here are some of my immediate comedic observations:
- The smile/angry ad: Raia and crew all happy go lucky, while they pick the most mean and miserable pictures of their opposition. Good tactic, but haven’t “consumers” figured it out by now?
- Richard Tremitiedi: “For years he fought fires, now he’ll fight for you!”.. what does that mean, he’ll spray you with high-pressure water cannons?
- Campos: “Advocated for street paving”.. no duh! It was only 20 years since the last time it was surfaced. What idiot WOULDN’T do that? Just like applying water to a fire, it’s common sense, pal.
Between The Lines
I never comment of Al Sullivans (honestly) biased and shady political column, but today I had to. Here are his “predicitions” for the Council elections:
Castellano (without a runoff), Mason “narrowly defeating” Tremitiedi (with a strong write-in candidate makes this race close enough for a runoff? Who the hell is he kidding? Unless he has inside information, that makes NO sense), Russo defeating Raia, Zimmer and Campos in a runoff (with NO real prediction), Cunningham and Delea in a runoff (no mention of Belfiore) and Giacchi and Foley in a runoff (no mention of Noonan).
I don’t know, but I get the feeling that the Reporter is trying to SWAY the election somehow. More on this later.
More Stories and Observations
A story on the city-wide disaster drill. This was probably a good exercise for the city to perform. However, they left out the looting and stabbings that might occur if such disaster occurred.
A nice ad for “Hospital Week” showing the improved emergency room at HUMC. It’s nice to have improved facilities. But is that where the 50+ million has gone? For full page promotions in the local paper? And what about the missing parking spots that will happen as a result?
Letters to the Editor
What seems to be a Reporter record, 29 letters on THREE pages. Yikes!
I’m questioning the layout of their letters to a degree. If they’d use alphabetical order consistently, I’d understand, but it perplexes me why they picked certain ward candidates to be published ahead of others. They’re apparently supporting Campos, Russo, Tremitiedi and Castellano from the looks of it. Although they did publish more “we support” letters for some candidates than others (such as 6 for Zimmer & Cunningham, 3 for Mason & Rosenberg, 2 for Tremitiedi, Russo & Noonan, 1 for Castellano, Delea, Campos & Belfiore). Perhaps there wasn’t enough written correspondence? Makes you think, no?
Seeing that Campos’ letter was first and foremost, I find some aspects a bit irritating. He’s angry at his competitions opposition to the SW plan “without proposing” anything. But that’s the point! There needs to be more STUDIES before you can intelligently propose anything new! Otherwise, it’d be a blind proposal (just like the current one). Another thing he mentioned was that “after he received a call”, he agreed to meet with the planners. Why does it take a call? Why didn’t you do that on your own? What if you didn’t receive that “call”? Lastly, he boldly mentions a “4-acre” park in the SW, when the MASTER PLAN calls for a 7-ACRE park! Does he not understand that?
Please feel free to correct me if I’ve made any errors, and I’ll just blame the “overabundance” of politics in the last few months. Myself and most of the 411 readers will be happy once the elections are over! Maybe then I’ll throw the “411 Happy Hour” somewhere fun!
Regardless, GET OUT AND VOTE! I’ll remind you all again later tonight!