Before I write about the issue du jour, let me just tell you how absolutely proud I am to have written a post mentioning the St. Petersburg Times that ended up in Urban Dictionary. Yes, the post involved the word “taint” and it’s moments like this that make life worth living.
Also, stop the presses, outgoing Times food critic Laura Reiley actually wrote a review that does not end with the awarding of 2.5 stars. In this case, she awarded 3. That means this wonderful restaurant is just a half-star better than the take-out pizza joints Reiley reviewed last week. Fret not, Reiley will return to form tomorrow when her review of Primi is published. What does she think of adorable little Primi? That’s right, 2.5 stars. Now, do you see what I mean? Her reviewing system is meaningless. (Still waiting for her response to an e-mail I sent to her, maybe I ‘ll have to call her!)
What a tragic story this is about Jack Bodziak. I know a little something about writing bad checks to get one’s self out of a hole. But I also know that doing that only leads to more headaches. Story says Jack is facing 21 months in the clink. Just remember, Jack, you only do two days…the day you go in and the day you come out. Stay strong.
Now on to the business of the day…
How else to say it than the St. Petersburg Times blinked. In the game of chicken Times Publishing Co. was playing with the City of St. Petersburg over the city’s solicitation ban, the Times flat-out blinked.
Here’s the proposed deal: Times Publishing Co., the parent company of the St. Petersburg Times, will drop its suit if the city agrees not to pursue legal fees.
“From what I understand it may be over by the end of the day,” said council member Wengay Newton.
City Attorney John Wolfe said he was calling council members on Tuesday to brief them about the potential deal. So far there have only been talks, Wolfe said, nothing is in writing yet.
Truth be told, neither the Times, nor the City wanted the negotiations to be made public, but, unfortunately, this blog exists to make public those things neither the Times nor the City want to see made public. If the Times hated me before, I’m sure it’s not too happy with me today, especially after I published surveillance photos of its vendors violating public safety laws while they hawked their newspaper.
Something you may not notice in the Times‘ story about itself — and its coverage of this story has been a textbook example of how a newspaper should not cover a story about itself — is any explanation for why Times Publishing Co. dropped the case so quickly.
If I were Times lawyer George Rahdert, I’d be pissed that my client made me go through the hassle of filing a lawsuit, as well as fighting the ordinance at a public hearing, only to see them drop the lawsuit at the first sign of trouble. In other words, the St. Petersburg Times is not a machine…