See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
28 January 2008
at 10:45 a.m.
(Jerry Raehal) says…
This article has been changed to correct a spelling. We apologize for the error.
Jerry RaehalDaily Press editor
17 January 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Greetings,Thank you for your comments. Not all the businesses have been contacted about this issue by the Police Department. Once that is done, we plan to publish their names.
Jerry RaehalEditor of the Craig Daily Press
16 January 2008
at 2:05 p.m.
Greetings,I would like to thank everyone for his or her comments on the blotter. At every paper I've been associated with, the blotter is always a section that creates debate.There also are some critical comments about the Daily Press on these posts, which I always encourage. It helps us get better. However, there is one allegation that I take issue with: That the Daily Press does not print the names in the blotter of prominent people who have been arrested and taken to the jail . This is an absolute falsehood. In the year I've been here, every name that is given to us, we report. Period.If you believe there is a prominent person who has been arrested and taken to jail and not been in the blotter, email me at email@example.com so the paper can investigate as to why this information is missing. I encourage you not to post their names on the Web site, as it could lead to libel charges against you and the newspaper if the allegations are false.Again, thank you for your comments. Always feel free to call or email me your thoughts or suggestions for improvement.
20 December 2007
at 8:36 p.m.
Thanks for the feedback,I looked into what Steamboat does, and it was the same process we did at my last paper, where you take the call logs, and do the blotter off of there. I plan to discuss with the PD here, but from my experience there are problems with the call logs that we need to work out. I plan to explore more in the future.
20 December 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Thank you for your comments. I want to let you know the paper takes your concerns seriously. Therefore, we contacted the County Commissioners to see if they believe we “did not report the conversations completely,” or if the story was incomplete or lacking information. We also viewed the meeting minutes on the commissioners Web site, and we are scheduled to have the tape of the meeting at our office. The commissioners told us that they believe the article was truthful and the conversations were reported accurately from the meeting. Saed also said if someone has questions about it, he would gladly discuss it with them, 824-9155. If there is another angle we need to look at this story, please let me knowAgain, thank you for your comments, debate and points raised.
14 December 2007
at 6:26 p.m.
Grannyrett,Thanks for the feedback. I will look into seeing if we can do a more complete blotter, and what that will entail.If you like history, I think you will like some of our plans for the next year as the town celebrates its Centennial. Any ideas you have about articles reflecting the town's history are always welcome.When I get a chance, I will look at some of the papers you mention to see what you mean.I appreciate the feedback.Thanks,Jerry RaehalEditor
12 December 2007
at 11:08 a.m.
Greetings,Jason Bourne; I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question. The answer goes back to what was said in the previous post, with an addition. We focus crime coverage on trends or big events; all other events appear in the blotter. I have posted a blog on the reader forum to discuss the theory of our news coverage (for those who do not know how to access blogs, click on the triangle next to reader forum and drop down box will give the option to go to blogs), which goes more in depth as to why we do what we do, especially on crime coverage. And as aforementioned in the other post, perhaps it is an issue we need to reevaluate, and decide if we would better serve our community by printing more crime stories. Again, please send feedback as to how to better serve the community. And if you believe there is editorial bias, please call me, email me, yell at me, something to address it with me. It is not OK.
Taylor; I support my reporters 100 percent. The buck stops with me, so if criticism is deserved, it's mine.
Kamie, thank you for the information. Right after the fire, the numbers we found were wide ranging, up to as high as $6 million, and as low as $2 million. Because of that range, we decided to focus on assessed value, and wait for more details to come out. In the future, we will clarify that better.
Granneyrett, Details on the fire are slow coming. Police are moving forward with the investigation, but have no information to release at this time. There was a story in Saturday about relocation of businesses, titled 'Forward and backward,' and is on the Web site. We've also noted where some of the businesses are relocating in cutlines to photos.
Again, I want to thank everyone for their comments, and encourage them so we can better serve the community.
7 December 2007
at 2:07 p.m.
There was a mistake in the story. It was three years. Not three months. We are changing the copy in the online edition, printing a correction in the paper, and apologize for the error.
Jerry RaehalCraig Daily Press editor
7 December 2007
at 2:02 p.m.
Thank you for the question.There was a reported incident at the Furniture Gallery the night of the fire, according to police reports. However, the two incidents are not believed to be related.I was at the fire that night. I heard stories about the incident at the furniture store, and had concerns; however, part of the story being circulated that night about the incident we have been told is not ture (an account about vandals starting a dumpster fires around town there was a dumpster fire reported earlier, but not all over town - and then trying to break into places all over town). The point is - and this is not to diminish anything that happened at the Furniture Gallery or to say that we may not learn later that the two are connected- there are a plethora of rumors about the fire, virtually none that can be confirmed at this point. As editor, I do everything in my power to avoid speculation about investigations.If some of the many rumors prove true, we will print them, not because they are rumors that proved true, but because they are being reported by official sources, people who can be held accountable if found distributing inaccurate information.While I agree it does seem like a strange coincidence that the night of the fire there was an issue at the store, no reports have been made saying they were connected. Again, if an investigating source reports that the two are connected, we will go from there. On a final note, when it comes to such incidents, the Daily Press has focused more on trends (i.e. - if there were a lot of vandalism attempts or break ins) than what might be considered an isolated incident. Perhaps this is something we should revisit.I hope this explains the “why” behind what we did. Please let me know if you have any other questions,
28 November 2007
at 11:10 a.m.
Thanks for the comments.We double- checked with Dan Davidson; he said the Seibott's had sold out to Samuelson the year before the fire.
Jerry RaehalDaily Press Editor
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.