Sunday, January 20, 2008
It's now a lot harder to make fun of Creighton...
...after this. This is really a fantastic idea. And I tend to agree that since the bar closes at 10 and won't serve shots, binge drinking on the premises will be fairly difficult, though thankfully not impossible.
What I would really like to discuss is how ridiculously biased this article is. The Weird Herald really went out of their way, I felt, to interject exactly how they feel about the idea (shockingly opposed, sarcasm) at several points throughout the story. Nothing this fucking blight on the journalism world does at this point surprises me, but this was absurd.
Look at the last quote.
Look at how much attention was given to UW-Madison compared to the little private school in Kansas that is probably a hell of a lot more comparable to Creighton and supposedly doesn't have very many problems.
Etc.
I'd like to open it up to discussion. Was this article pushing an agenda? This bar is a pretty awesome idea, right? Does the World Herald even need to exist with the exception of Tom Shatel and Robert Nelson? Should Mike Kelley be writing for the Lexington Clipper instead of making my brain melt bi-weekly? Suck it, Creighton?
What I would really like to discuss is how ridiculously biased this article is. The Weird Herald really went out of their way, I felt, to interject exactly how they feel about the idea (shockingly opposed, sarcasm) at several points throughout the story. Nothing this fucking blight on the journalism world does at this point surprises me, but this was absurd.
Look at the last quote.
Look at how much attention was given to UW-Madison compared to the little private school in Kansas that is probably a hell of a lot more comparable to Creighton and supposedly doesn't have very many problems.
Etc.
I'd like to open it up to discussion. Was this article pushing an agenda? This bar is a pretty awesome idea, right? Does the World Herald even need to exist with the exception of Tom Shatel and Robert Nelson? Should Mike Kelley be writing for the Lexington Clipper instead of making my brain melt bi-weekly? Suck it, Creighton?
Labels: Creighton, Mike Kelley=bad...Tom Shatel=good, Omaha World-Herald, Sad Panda, Suck it Creighton
Comments:
<< Home
Think of how bad Kelly is as a columnist... now think about what it's like to work with him. Diva is not even close to te right word. The OWH is becoming an outdated joke.
It's typical "nanny state" shit in that article.
"We know what is best for you and the University you attend! How dare they open a bar on campus! Don't they know how dangerous it is?"
Seriously, how hard is it to run a bar anywhere, on-campus or not? It's all about who you hire to run it. This article basically says:
Serving alcohol on campus = dangerous act.
Which is ridiculous.
Colleges today are in the middle of an "arms race" in regards of on-campus facilities. The cost of going to college is going up at something like 20x's the inflation rate. In order to help offset any of this stuff, these colleges are having to look into free-market solutions to help in any way possible. This is a great example of that.
But I suppose the World-Herald would rather see some more federal grant money come in than have Creighton do something as immoral as opening a *gasp* sports bar on campus.
I suppose that is my point, and I'm sure (er, know) that others on this here blog will disagree: our society has become so dependent on looking for the government to bail everything out, it is ridiculous. Then, when you see an entity like Creighton look for new and creative ideas to help offset some of the incredible challenges facing higher education today that does not go along with that agenda, they're going to go out of their way to question it.
And not to mention that, it was the banner headline in the Sunday paper, and they're talking about--again--a sports bar that, from the sounds of the article, will seat I would guess about 50 people.
So, is the article pushing an agenda? If I were a betting man, I'd say "absolutely." We may disagree on what agenda they are pushing, but they are.
Lastly, I would say that anyone that knows me would have a guess as to what I felt about the OWH. And as you and I have discussed several times, Pete, I totally agree with you: Mr. Nelson and Mr. Shatel (I would put Mitch Sherman and Lee Barknefasdteaasjhlkjsndt in there, as well) are the only people worth reading in that paper anymore.
I will say it is surprising that the OWH wrote an article that was in any way disparaging towards Creighton.
"We know what is best for you and the University you attend! How dare they open a bar on campus! Don't they know how dangerous it is?"
Seriously, how hard is it to run a bar anywhere, on-campus or not? It's all about who you hire to run it. This article basically says:
Serving alcohol on campus = dangerous act.
Which is ridiculous.
Colleges today are in the middle of an "arms race" in regards of on-campus facilities. The cost of going to college is going up at something like 20x's the inflation rate. In order to help offset any of this stuff, these colleges are having to look into free-market solutions to help in any way possible. This is a great example of that.
But I suppose the World-Herald would rather see some more federal grant money come in than have Creighton do something as immoral as opening a *gasp* sports bar on campus.
I suppose that is my point, and I'm sure (er, know) that others on this here blog will disagree: our society has become so dependent on looking for the government to bail everything out, it is ridiculous. Then, when you see an entity like Creighton look for new and creative ideas to help offset some of the incredible challenges facing higher education today that does not go along with that agenda, they're going to go out of their way to question it.
And not to mention that, it was the banner headline in the Sunday paper, and they're talking about--again--a sports bar that, from the sounds of the article, will seat I would guess about 50 people.
So, is the article pushing an agenda? If I were a betting man, I'd say "absolutely." We may disagree on what agenda they are pushing, but they are.
Lastly, I would say that anyone that knows me would have a guess as to what I felt about the OWH. And as you and I have discussed several times, Pete, I totally agree with you: Mr. Nelson and Mr. Shatel (I would put Mitch Sherman and Lee Barknefasdteaasjhlkjsndt in there, as well) are the only people worth reading in that paper anymore.
I will say it is surprising that the OWH wrote an article that was in any way disparaging towards Creighton.
Due to part of their liquor license agreement they will only be allowed to have 3 types of beer on tap. Fittingly, since this is a Creighton sports bar, they went with Zima, Fuzzy Navels, and Schmidts Gay.
Suck it Creighton!
Suck it Creighton!
This article did everything short of suggesting that this bar would be responsible for an increase in same-sex experimentation on campus. Of course, since it's Creighton, maybe that was just understood.
Pete;
No, you are not off the mark. Even the headline was perjorative: "Creighton bellies up to the bar."
GA Hill hit it on the head with the Nanny State comment. "we're the World-Herald, and we're smarter than you."
Post a Comment
No, you are not off the mark. Even the headline was perjorative: "Creighton bellies up to the bar."
GA Hill hit it on the head with the Nanny State comment. "we're the World-Herald, and we're smarter than you."
<< Home
Term Papers
