Hooray for the HA!

Date: May 14, 2004

Hooray for the HA!

Date: May 14, 2004

Who is John Ower, and where has he been? That's a superb letter!

AE

Date: May 14, 2004

Go figure. Previously, Mr. Ower has written letters in support of SFT. Maybe folks are beginning to see what has been going on the last two years.

Date: May 14, 2004

The HA editorial is just one of many indications that the PUC, designed as a PR ploy, may very well backfire on SFT and result in further negative publicity. As I have said before, this guy is his own worst enemy (thank Whomever!).

Date: May 14, 2004

The Hat Am editorial is further proof that Thames has pooched his credibility with newspapers that, no so long ago, would have been content to print his press releases.

And if Ower used to support Thames, you'd get no idea of that from reading what he's writing now.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"The Hat Am editorial is further proof that Thames has pooched his credibility with newspapers that, no so long ago, would have been content to print his press releases. And if Ower used to support Thames, you'd get no idea of that from reading what he's writing now. Robert Campbell"

First of all, thanks for introducing me to a great new ver -- "pooched."

Secondly, if anyone can dig up the ostensible earlier letter by Mr. Ower supporting SFT, it would be great to be able to juxtapose them and thus provide a compelling demonstration of SFT's eroding support.

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" First of all, thanks for introducing me to a great new ver -- "pooched." Secondly, if anyone can dig up the ostensible earlier letter by Mr. Ower supporting SFT, it would be great to be able to juxtapose them and thus provide a compelling demonstration of SFT's eroding support."

Here are comments ABOUT his previous letter: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20030715/opinion/577035.html

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" First of all, thanks for introducing me to a great new ver -- "pooched." Secondly, if anyone can dig up the ostensible earlier letter by Mr. Ower supporting SFT, it would be great to be able to juxtapose them and thus provide a compelling demonstration of SFT's eroding support."

John Ower has written two more articles recently

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20030712/opinion/554322.html

(critical of a writing center)

and

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040314/opinion/74657.html

(critical of Thames)

Date: May 14, 2004

I think it would be interesting to do a "time series" study of editorials & letters-to-the-editor in the HA. Several years ago, I noticed that the HA had well-defined "liberal days" & "conservative days" when they print syndicated columnists.

We all b*tch & moan on the "pro-Thames days" & applaud on the "pro-faculty days." I'm seeing a pattern. Is anyone else?

Looks to me like the HA is a fence-straddler, concerned with not offending any one group enough to hurt their sales...

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USMbacker
" John Ower has written two more articles recently http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20030712/opinion/554322.html (critical of a writing center) and http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040314/opinion/74657.html (critical of Thames)"

Must clarify (and, BTW, thanks for finding the articles, USMBacker!)...that first article is not just critical of a "writing center," but The Center for Writers, a nationally-ranked top 10 writing program. The five faculty that he mentioned here (including DC Berry, the one man protester, along with Rick Barthelme, Steve Barthelme, Angela Ball, and Mary Robison) all have brought national acclaim to USM by writing bestselling books, winning national and international awards, and attracting students from all over the country to come and study with them. I have to disclose that I'm biased since I'm a doctoral candidate in that area, but the praise is not without merit. Under Aubrey Lucas, the Center for Writers was designated a "Center of Excellence" at USM, and rightly so.

Now 2 of its 5 faculty members are leaving. I'm glad to see that Mr. Ower is changing his tune on Shelby...he gets my vote as "Most Improved Attitude of a former SFT-supporter!"

Date: May 14, 2004

John Ower's most recent letters are precisely the kinds of things state officials need to see; they are evidence of a man who (rare thing!) apparently has actually changed his mind. He originally seems to have thought SFT was a decent president, but, confronted with real evidence to the contrary, he has altered his opinion. Bravo for him!

I sent off a copy of his latest letter to the IHL this morning.

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Looks to me like the HA is a fence-straddler, concerned with not offending any one group enough to hurt their sales..."

Well, we in Mississippi must always struggle against the good-hearted temptation to think competence doesn't matter as long as one is being "nice."

Date: May 14, 2004

Speaking of blatant publicity gestures, I'd humbly suggest that the Faculty Senate be watching its collective backside with respect to the Thames "olive branch" letter, posted here in another thread.

This missive has nothing to do with the FacSen, or Thames stated desire to work jointly toward shared goals. It's clearly intended to serve as an exhibit, for the public and more importantly, for the IHL, proof of his willingness to be magnanimous and bury the hatchet. ("I've tried to work with these people. They won't even try to move ahead. I don't know what else I can possibly do.") I'd even speculate that Thames would be pleased if his letter is either ignored or met with a strident response. This would provide him with further evidence that he's the reasonable party.

His "efforts" to seek input from the faculty may be transparent BS to those on this board, but they're also cleverly crafted pre-emptive PR moves. Knowing what you do about the IHL board members, wouldn't you wager that his letter to the FacSen, and the PUC touchy-feely sessions will be well received by his intended audience?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Thames propaganda machine is consistently one step ahead of the "good guys". Shouldn't someone consider brainstorming with profs in your own journalism department about effective counter measures? I just reviewed the USM journalism and communications web page. It looks as though there are at least a half dozen in-house media professionals who could offer assistance in crafting a pro-active strategy for diffusing the Thames/Mader media machine. Surely one or more of them would be honored to help develop a plan, pro bono.

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"
Looks to me like the HA is a fence-straddler, concerned with not offending any one group enough to hurt their sales..."

That's what Paul Weaver calls Pulitzerian journalism. Gotta maximize circulation, cause you gotta maximize advertising revenues.

But I'll take the Hat Am over the Greenville News, the Anderson Independent-Mail, or the State (out of Columbia, SC) any day. In a comparable situation, they'd print whatever the president and the Board wanted them to print, with only a token dissenting voice in a long while.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 14, 2004

Aren't we approaching the deadline for a required response to the Open Records Act request by the HA (as reported by Janet Braswell) about obtaining documents that will indicate whose communications have been monitored? I suppose that I could go back and look for the thread but it really doesn't matter because I'm sure the HA is on top of it. Nonetheless, a reminder that a quiet issue isn't a dead one. Wonder if there will be a report in the paper before the IHL board meeting.

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Mediahound
"Aren't we approaching the deadline for a required response to the Open Records Act request by the HA (as reported by Janet Braswell) about obtaining documents that will indicate whose communications have been monitored? I suppose that I could go back and look for the thread but it really doesn't matter because I'm sure the HA is on top of it. Nonetheless, a reminder that a quiet issue isn't a dead one. Wonder if there will be a report in the paper before the IHL board meeting."

Thanks for reminding us of this. If SFT were truly interest in improved communcation, he would have provided this information voluntarily when it was first requested.

Date: May 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Mediahound
"Wonder if there will be a report in the paper before the IHL board meeting."

Doubtful. The fine for not providing open records is so low as to be no deterrent whatsoever to an organization that can funnel $140K to a salary off the books.

Anyway, some shelboid has probably called Rich Campbell & explained that they simply didn't keep a record of who they monitored, etc. etc., threw in a nice dinner at Purple Parrot, etc. etc.

Either that, or they informed the HA that the "copying fee" (which may be assessed to an open records request) would be $100 a page & there were 400,000 pages.