The Observation Deck

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:13 pm**

Again, from the top.

I am not a psychic.

Actually I mentioned this earlier but cannot find it.

.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:05 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:In an effort to silence this 12-year-old media project of the residents, celebrating this 4th
of July our 10th year in print., dedicated to getting the truth and facts, and observations
out is coming under attack by the City of Lakewood, yet again, as advertisers are calling
explaining that they are getting pressure about backing this project, the project that just put the Mayor of Lakewood on the cover above the fold announcing his run for re-election.
Is once again viewed as a threat to City Hall's plans.

This would be this administration's 4th attempt to silence the voices of the residents of Lakewood in this project. If you add in Ed, I think it is the 6th.

These people are getting desperately sick.

Perhaps we should leave holes in the pages where the ads were?

All we have ever asked for is honesty from elected officials.

*** The Cleveland Clinic has not pulled their support for getting voices out.

.

Just to be clear, the advertisers are specifically saying "someone from the city is asking that I not support the LO with my advertising dollars" right? I only ask because this went from generalities to naming specific organizations pretty quickly. What are the actual facts of the advertisers complaints? I think a lot gets attributed to "the big bad City Administration" even if specific concerns come from fellow citizens (we can revisit calling anyone questioning anything SLH as being a "lacky" to the administration if you would like). I know "truth to power" and "David and Goliath" narrative plays well but there are just as many individual citizens who, just like many on the LO Deck, make up their own mind with the facts as presented by both sides of the issue...even if they don't agree with SLH, in part or in full.

So again, are advertisers specifically saying someone from City Hall is saying "don't advertise" or is this an assumption? Because following this original post people on the Deck seem to be responding to the assumption, not the underlying concern (which is that for some reason advertisers are finding the LO brand toxic).

Just looking for clarification.

Thanks!

Phil

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:16 pm**

Phil Florian wrote: Just to be clear, the advertisers are specifically saying "someone from the city is asking that I not support the LO with my advertising dollars" right? I only ask because this went from generalities to naming specific organizations pretty quickly. What are the actual facts of the advertisers complaints? I think a lot gets attributed to "the big bad City Administration" even if specific concerns come from fellow citizens (we can revisit calling anyone questioning anything SLH as being a "lacky" to the administration if you would like). I know "truth to power" and "David and Goliath" narrative plays well but there are just as many individual citizens who, just like many on the LO Deck, make up their own mind with the facts as presented by both sides of the issue...even if they don't agree with SLH, in part or in full.

So again, are advertisers specifically saying someone from City Hall is saying "don't advertise" or is this an assumption? Because following this original post people on the Deck seem to be responding to the assumption, not the underlying concern (which is that for some reason advertisers are finding the LO brand toxic).

Just looking for clarification.

Thanks!

Phil

Phil

There is a disconnect on the entire message.

There is also the difference between people being told to not support the Observer, and if they actually do it.

I would never sell out a private source, but calls are being made, comments made and efforts being made.

It is America and people can talk and say what should go where.

It is not they are feeling the Observer is toxic, but as pointed out by markling that we are being unfair.

Usually a perception, not the truth.

I see no need making side stories "major stories" so I would prefer to wait until after the election. What I would say is that major advertisers that had serious questions about our editorial policy, have stayed with the project and continue to support the project including the Cleveland Clinic.

.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:01 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
I see no need making side stories "major stories" so I would prefer to wait until after the election. What I would say is that major advertisers that had serious questions about our editorial policy, have stayed with the project and continue to support the project including the Cleveland Clinic.

.

Fair enough. Glad the advertisers stuck around!

I guess I worry when there is no story minor or major but assumptions and connections are made without valid support. that's all. I think a fair statement to be culled from your original post and follow up would be "Major advertisers had questions about our editorial policies but have stayed on and continue to support the LO." I assume beyond this everything else publicly discussed are merely conjectures at best.

Thanks for sharing. Glad the support remains!

Later,

Phil

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:21 pm**

Phil Florian wrote: Fair enough. Glad the advertisers stuck around!

I guess I worry when there is no story minor or major but assumptions and connections are made without valid support. that's all. I think a fair statement to be culled from your original post and follow up would be "Major advertisers had questions about our editorial policies but have stayed on and continue to support the LO." I assume beyond this everything else publicly discussed are merely conjectures at best.

Thanks for sharing. Glad the support remains!

Later,

Phil

Phil

You know me, I am pretty light hearted and easy going.

I am thankful for every advertiser that has been here, for as long or as short as they have been here.

I give real credit to some of the advertisers here, a lot of people have taken real heat for supporting this project over the 12 years, in the end they all believe the city is better off for having us around.

PS - Go check out the windows at Roman Fountain, read the letter. Most people hate being told what to think or say.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:21 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Phil Florian wrote: Fair enough. Glad the advertisers stuck around!

I guess I worry when there is no story minor or major but assumptions and connections are made without valid support. that's all. I think a fair statement to be culled from your original post and follow up would be "Major advertisers had questions about our editorial policies but have stayed on and continue to support the LO." I assume beyond this everything else publicly discussed are merely conjectures at best.

Thanks for sharing. Glad the support remains!

Later,

Phil

Phil

You know me, I am pretty light hearted and easy going.

I am thankful for every advertiser that has been here, for as long or as short as they have been here.

I give real credit to some of the advertisers here, a lot of people have taken real heat for supporting this project over the 12 years, in the end they all believe the city is better off for having us around.

PS - Go check out the windows at Roman Fountain Pizza, read the letter. Most people hate being told what to think or say.

The Observation Deck

Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly

Re: Now It's Gets Interesting - Down Right Ugly