8 Sep
2014
8 Sep
'14
9:19 a.m.
The argument is not that ONL is not radical enough, it's that the show was
basically a free commercial for the mayoral candidates. Free, meaning,
subsidized by the Omni and when I say the Omni I mean the groups that are
currently contributing to making the Omni function.
Creating a civic space for the community means engaging the community, not
having politicians sit there and spout meaningless rhetoric at the
community for two hours.
If ONL wants to just be nothing more than an entertaining talk show, why
have mayoral candidates on as guests?
N
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lowe <andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
I did not attend this event, but I have attended ONL
events before. ONL is
a talk show, I'm not sure why not being political enough makes them
"offensive". I mean I will let them speak for them selves, but they are an
entertainment show, why would you expect a "debate" at a talk show?
Also while it is true that ONL reduced their rent before singing the
sublease option, there still has been no official policy that says that
that action (which Backspace took as well, at the time) requires a
re-application.
It would be great if ONL paid more, but keep in mind that we haven't come
up with a price for nightly rentals in the ballroom, when we do I think it
would be fair to evaluate ONL's contribution based on that.
Anyway, just standing up for this show even if it isn't really my cup of
tea all the time, I think what ONL has been able to do with it is pretty
amazing, and to force them out because their show isn't radical enough in
the ways you want it to be would be a shame.
--Andrew
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:33 AM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Charley Sheets <rcsheets(a)acm.org> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
It seems like section 7 could use some additional
detail. I for one
don't know what "Saturday's 9/6 ONL event" was, or why it would be
offensive.
They had 3 mayoral candidates in the room (parker, tuman, siegel), but
chose to interview one candidate at a time. Each candidate got an
uninterrupted stump speech, pandering questions from the hosts, then 2
ad-hoc audience questions, and that was it. One even screened a
commercial.
I was disappointed and insulted because I'd heard it was going to be a
"debate." Maybe it got distorted in the rumor-mill. But either way,
this candidate-showcasing style of engagement is something people have
fought against for ages. It's passive, undemocratic, and pointless. If
we're going to engage with electoral politics we should know this
history. Here's the League of Women Voters explaining why they stopped
hosting presidential "debates" in 1988:
http://www.lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
Some more history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates#D…
I think at minimum, a debate needs to:
* force candidates to interact with each other
* invite all candidates at the same time
* prioritize audience participation and engagement
We missed an opportunity - we had them on our turf and did nothing new
with them - but it's not too late. On October 11 they're hosting 3
more (schaaf, kaplan, quan). Maybe ONL will be open to input on how
they conduct next month's event! Any Sudoers who want to ask tough
questions on the record of present and future mayors on our turf,
now's your chance to get involved. :)
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss