# Summit Daily News fires reporter who criticized Vail



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

I'm not sure which is the bigger non-story:
Colorado resorts lie about how much snow they have on their slopes? 
Newspapers have to bow to corporate interests? 

The Vail resorts probably didn't have to threaten to pull advertising. All they had to threaten was cancellation of lift passes to the Summit Daily staff and the piranha ate their own.

What percentage of Vail skiers/riders are Coloradans anyway? Pretty small I'd bet.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Thank you for posting this*

I have advocated for the introduction of Vail into Utah and was disappointed when they did not prevail in the purchase of the Canyons resort. I felt their advancement of cheap lift tickets would help me. Three kids means I put out some coin every year to PCMR or DeerValley. This has caused my view to change. Having three owners in one town allows for open and frank discourse on development and the balance of corporate with community. I had not considered the negative impact of the Vail monopoly on my SummitCounty brethren a state away. While arguably, they could not have held such a big stick here, 
I see them in a different light today. I have an annual client pilgrimage over to Vail every year. Maybe this year we'll switch to Jackson Hole. I have to ponder this. Does anyone have a link to the story in the Summit Daily? I read the editors response, but couldn’t find the offending article.

Thanks


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Corporate bullies and spineless newspaper publishers. More reasons to avoid Summit/Vail.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*straw that broke the back*

If this is the article, I'm mystified. There must be much more for a man to lose his job.

Berwyn: Has weather science been hijacked for marketing? | SummitDaily.com


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

I own a business that advertises everyday with both the Summit Daily and Vail Daily. I know a lot of the staff at both papers. So I can tell you a few things about how it works over there. 

First, even smaller advertisers like myself can get "advertorials" run every now and then, and it is easy to get on the rotation of PR type people they call for comments. 

Second, I have had my rep tell me straight up that the Daily won't run a story harmful to my business. I was told specifically that they have a policy of not running a story that intentionally harms any local business, even if they are not an advertiser. 

Third, were I in Vail resorts position I would do atleast as much. I've instigated retractions and massive rebates for smaller offenses. 

If you are offended by the idea that advertisers, upon whom the publication of a FREE daily paper rests solely upon, have loose control over the content of that paper then you are naive. If the Summit/Vail Daily were being paid by their readers then we might have a different situation here. 

But even with that said, in these small ski towns we all need to work together to ensure our own profitability. If that means editorializing the "news" in order serve marketing purposes I am in support of it.

Finally, I do agree that the author was wrongly terminated. After all his editor read and approved the article. But no one fires his good friend. I would bet that the author (who I do not know) had been on his editors hitlist for a while and that this was simple opportunism.


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

Yeah, read the article and it was actually pretty good. I think the copy editor over-glamorized the "subterfuge" of the slope industries. This was hardly a hack piece against the ski resorts. It's rather disappointing to see them react so negatively to it. Guy should not have been fired, at least for this article.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

He didn't even call out the resorts by name, it is false advertising to report lots of snow if it's not falling on your mountain. Aren't there laws against false advertising?


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

Wow, that article was pretty bland when it comes to confratation. He just muses that maybe the resorts should be more transparent about their reporting of snowfall in general. I bet in a way Berwyn is happy he is looking towards more serious publications. If you are a decent reporter, it has to get old quick working for the Summit and Vail Daily.
 
As far as the Summit and Vail daily papers, they are pretty worthless anyway. What do they take, 3 minutes to read? When I lived up there, I would grab one everyday, less for the content, more for the kindling value for my wood burner!


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

Jensjustduckie said:


> He didn't even call out the resorts by name, it is false advertising to report lots of snow if it's not falling on your mountain. Aren't there laws against false advertising?


The laws against false advertising are enforceable in the same way as the laws against speeding: only the most egregious and the most harmful can be targeted.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

That is lame, I guess it gives an alternate meaning to "little white lies" huh?

Good to see you here again Helio, seems like you were gone for a while.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

A little bending to your advertisers is reality, but this goes too far. 

How can we protest this? Is there a Vail feedback address, or Summit Daily feedback?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I'm in the advertising bidness. The quid pro quo game that the advertisers and publisher are playing in that market is repulsive even to me. Full disclosure: I started out on the editorial side of the fence...


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

What makes everyone so sure that the guy who wrote the article is telling the truth and that he isn't just some ass hole? He was probably fired because everybody hated him.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Asshole or *not* an advertiser asskisser? Who knows. We're all speculating.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

DurangoSteve said:


> Asshole or *not* an advertiser asskisser? Who knows. We're all speculating.


As an advertiser it is my ass that gets kissed thank you. I believe that is what this is all about. But I could use another $500 dinner if anyone from the daily is reading this.

I suppose your advertising business is so successful that your buyers buy you the concert tickets? (<-- no, thats cruel, I retract that statement)


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

Hey Elkars,
If you want your ass kissed, why don't you tell us what business you own?


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

Freedom of the press was enshrined in our constitution for the purpose of helping the truth get out and as a check on the power of government and business. When the advertising side of a publication gains control over the editorial side news reporting ceases to hold its credibility. Reporters have been instrumental in exposing a wide variety of misdeeds by companies large and small across the nation. This is a hugely important role that the media plays. When reporters are required to never write a story that could be negative for a local company that power check is abolished and the reason for the freedom of the press is threatened. We should all hold news sources to a very high standard of truth in reporting, including reporting the truths that expose lies by business and governments.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

sbratt said:


> Hey Elkars,
> If you want your ass kissed, why don't you tell us what business you own?


Mainly I like free stuff and kickbacks when it comes to my ad contracts, I'm not much for actual ass kissing. 

I own Simply Massage (www.simplymassage.com). Visit us and help out a fellow boater and skier. We are the only large locally owned massage therapy business in the area.

Or you could visit one of our *competitors *at the link below. Give it a read and you'll see not all local businesses are immune from negative press in the Summit Daily (oh and the proprietor in this article *IS *an advertiser in the Summit Daily):
*Local massage therapist charged with sex assault on 18-year-old*


----------



## J Rock (May 19, 2005)

eklars said:


> If you are offended by the idea that advertisers, upon whom the publication of a FREE daily paper rests solely upon, have loose control over the content of that paper then you are naive. If the Summit/Vail Daily were being paid by their readers then we might have a different situation here.
> 
> But even with that said, in these small ski towns we all need to work together to ensure our own profitability. If that means editorializing the "news" in order serve marketing purposes I am in support of it.
> 
> Finally, I do agree that the author was wrongly terminated. After all his editor read and approved the article. But no one fires his good friend. I would bet that the author (who I do not know) had been on his editors hitlist for a while and that this was simple opportunism.


What a sad state of affairs we have when you think newspapers should editorialize their "news" to appease the best interests of local businesses. Why stop there? Why not make the same rules for politicians? That way we will never know what is really happening within our government? There is a reason the Founders created the freedom of the press, and no, it wasn't to ensure businesses like yours can succeed. 

Your shallow and uneducated response to this is truly deplorable. We need newspapers, blogs, whatever, to serve as the watchdog over our communities, our government, and yes, even our businesses. Otherwise, the corrupt practices by large banks that crippled this country last year, the Enron execs who crushed people's retirement dreams, etc. etc. etc. will become the norm.

If your business can't succeed unless the world around you falsifies information about it, then I say you should fail. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

Eklars, newspapers are for news. If you want advertisement, put yourself in one of those advertising magazines. I don't get the NY Times because of the Calvin Klein ads, I get the Times because they have reporters that are willing to report on anything. When "newspapers" are playing for their advertisers, it merely perpetuates sketchy business practices. Any news source that is able to be bullied because they have the balls to report on certain, potentially harmful, topics is no longer a news source. I want my news sources to tell me about things like this, otherwise the public is just having the wool pulled over its eyes for the benefit of a few. So, take your business to an advertising magazine, and let newspapers report the news.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

J Rock said:


> What a sad state of affairs we have when you think newspapers should editorialize their "news" to appease the best interests of local businesses. Why stop there? Why not make the same rules for politicians? That way we will never know what is really happening within our government? There is a reason the Founders created the freedom of the press, and no, it wasn't to ensure businesses like yours can succeed.
> 
> Your shallow and uneducated response to this is truly deplorable. We need newspapers, blogs, whatever, to serve as the watchdog over our communities, our government, and yes, even our businesses. Otherwise, the corrupt practices by large banks that crippled this country last year, the Enron execs who crushed people's retirement dreams, etc. etc. etc. will become the norm.
> 
> ...


This is just silly. Of course what you are saying is true! Jeez, take a breather. This isn't the constitution, its the frigin' Summit Daily. 

All I am telling you is the facts. *Its a free paper.* Readers don't pay for it, only advertisers. The Summit and Vail Dailies *are *influenced by advertisers because of this. Those are the facts baby, if you don't like it complain to someone who matters (i.e. not me or on this forum). 

There is plenty of news that you too can buy that is free from advertisers sway. The Summit and Vail dailies just aren't one of them. I think the right of free speech may actually still be intact in the country. I know, we are both surprised. So its OK, just calm yourself.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

CanyonEJ said:


> Eklars, newspapers are for news. If you want advertisement, put yourself in one of those advertising magazines. I don't get the NY Times because of the Calvin Klein ads, I get the Times because they have reporters that are willing to report on anything. When "newspapers" are playing for their advertisers, it merely perpetuates sketchy business practices. Any news source that is able to be bullied because they have the balls to report on certain, potentially harmful, topics is no longer a news source. I want my news sources to tell me about things like this, otherwise the public is just having the wool pulled over its eyes for the benefit of a few. So, take your business to an advertising magazine, and let newspapers report the news.


Look, I think I can perhaps summarize all this. The Summit Daily is effected by its advertisers. So now you know. I'm just working the system to feed my family.

Does that seem like a reasonable way for me to live my life? Don't answer that. haha.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

Hey,
If anyone is really concerned that I get unusually favorable Summit daily coverage because I spend 6 figures with them check out the link below. It is a list of all search results with "Simply Massage" in them.

Breckenridge & Summit County Colorado | SummitDaily.com News


----------



## JDHOG72 (Jul 18, 2007)

Believe nothing, question everything! Think for yourselves! In my experience the resorts under report as much as they over report. 

Long Live Simply Massage! Thanks for providing us poor locals with the opportunity to get rubbed.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

Here's a solution I think we can all get behind.

If the Summit Daily News just changed their name to Summit Daily Advertisers Publication we'd be set! Everyone would know just what they were getting. Its kinda like that guy who went on Oprah with that book that was supposed to be an autobiography but then it turned out it wasn't and then Oprah got pissed and they took all his money away and she made him apologize. That book and the Summit daily are both just filed under fact instead of fiction. 

Thanks for the props JDHOG72. In case you aren't local, JD is referencing the fact that Simply Massage offers award winning therapists at less than half the cost of competing spas. Thus "poor locals", otherwise known as just about everyone, largely visit us instead of the corporate jerks who own 'most everything else.


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

eklars said:


> This is just silly. Of course what you are saying is true! Jeez, take a breather. This isn't the constitution, its the frigin' Summit Daily.
> 
> All I am telling you is the facts. *Its a free paper.* Readers don't pay for it, only advertisers. The Summit and Vail Dailies *are *influenced by advertisers because of this. Those are the facts baby, if you don't like it complain to someone who matters (i.e. not me or on this forum).
> 
> There is plenty of news that you too can buy that is free from advertisers sway. The Summit and Vail dailies just aren't one of them. I think the right of free speech may actually still be intact in the country. I know, we are both surprised. So its OK, just calm yourself.


Almost all newspapers are supported mainly by advertising revenues. 25¢ a newspaper doesn't even cover printing costs in many cases (depending on the page count of the paper). So the fact that it is a free newspaper is largely irrelevant. 

You say to complain to someone that matters - and that is what is going on. We are talking directly to you - an advertiser that thinks their ad buying should entitle them to preferential and potentially unethical treatment by the editorial side of their local newspaper. Let me be clear here, it's one thing for the paper to cover semi-news events that portray you business in a positive light. Like editorial space about you expanding your business - it's advertorial but ethical. It is a completely different thing for the paper to not publish negative news worthy items because of your ad buying. That is unethical and no amount of ad buying should ever stop a paper from publishing the truth. 

Now try to remain calm, letting the truth out is OK, and that is a fact baby.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

I really don't understand how this became about me or why I am being attacked. 

Raftus: "It is a completely different thing for the paper to not publish negative news worthy items because of your ad buying. That is unethical and no amount of ad buying should ever stop a paper from publishing the truth." 

All I am doing, and all I have done throughout this thread, is point out that while the above may be true it is not adhered to in reality and that I like everyone else play the same game. You need not manifest your anger about this on me or my business, it prevalent everywhere. I'm like billy joel over here, I didn't start the fire! I get that alot of people reading this hate the fact that businesses can get articles critical of them pulled, but how is this my fault? I've never even had to execute my power to do so!

That exhausts my comments on the matter. I am off this thread.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

You made it about yourself by defending a practice that most of us see as unethical, and how you spend 6 digits advertising with the paper in question, and how you get kickbacks for advertising with them. it's not about you personally, just business practices, and you happen to be on here with the rest of us. You could have not responded, but you wanted to be part of the conversation.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

CanyonEJ said:


> ;I get the Times because they have reporters that are willing to report on anything.


Hahahahahaha, that's the funniest thing I've heard on this thread. 

This is a great home-town discussion of an issue that is paramount to our nation. Message control. Sometimes the media actually has a direct financial interest, other times, it's the advertiser's financial interest they are protecting. Support the independent media where you can find it, as transparency of business and publicly-held corporations is of tantamount importance. 

Lying about snow sucks, it's not different than any other lie. Some locals here like to "assist" in the under-reporting of snow, through brushing off the platform where they measure new snow. It's pretty funny actually, but just feeds the fire.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

Sometimes conversations are just about topics, not personal attacks. But I should have known better than to think a thread might stick to its title or just want to hear a relative insiders information on it. 

Anyway, enjoy the snow.


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

This isn't a personal attack. This is a discussion about an important topic. I am not angry at you or your business. I am not suggesting that people stop going to your business, I hope your business flourishes. I also hope that you change your point of view on this issue.

The line of defense that it is going on everywhere or that it is a prevalent practice is a faulty defense. Large numbers of people behaving unethically are still behaving unethically. When people loot during a riot it is still looting even if lots of other people are doing it. 

You say that you aren't to blame in part because you have never exercised your 'power' to get an article pulled. I say the fact that you believe you have or should be entitled to such a 'power' is a problem. I also agree that if the Summit Daily news became the Summit Daily Advertiser that it would solve the problem.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

eklars said:


> Mainly I like free stuff and kickbacks when it comes to my ad contracts, I'm not much for actual ass kissing.


You, or other advertisers are paying for this "free" stuff and kickbacks. It is not free. Just like "points" and "miles" aren't free for people with those kinds of credit cards, which you know if you process credit cards. The merchants pay for those "free" thing the consumers get. "Free" isn't so good when you're paying for it, and someone else is getting the kickback. This could eventually happen with your advertising dollar, when the people you pay for advertising decide other customers are more worthy of the free stuff and kickbacks.

It's funny you use the word kickbacks, which really is based in corruption.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Funny*

Elkars comments seem pretty realistic. You aren't going to make it in a small town if you take on the local establishment constantly as a news organization. I think you would have to pick your battles. The article here doesn't seem to take on the companies. Basically, wouldn't it be better to report overhnight snow and then the 24 hour total. I think every one of us would agree that would be a cool idea. Frankly I think there is a whole lot more to the story than the blast in the Denver Post. If that article got him fired, then vail resorts does deserve to be slapped. I just can't see the CEO or marketing department of a resort having the time to pick up the phone over that article. 

Elkars, trying to have a rationale debate here is difficult at best. Thanks for sharing some facts.

Thank God for the 2-3' we got this weekend. Come out to Utah, it is sweet right now!!


----------

