Opinions Needed on New Important Article Series

[admin]

Hey guys,
You may remember back in the summer I posted a link to a great article "Smoking ban encroaches on rights".
It is here:

http://www.alligator.org/opinion/columns/article_f9d89ed1-6786-59e4-9e65-e7d560e0ed01.html
We just hired the author to write an ongoing monthly series for PipesMagazine.com to point out many of the lies, and mis-justices by the antis.
I am hoping we might get some mainstream attention, although it will be challenging.
The question he just asked me is; "Would you like it to be the same tone as the original story that as published in The Alligator, slightly snarky and sarcastic about the entire issue, or would you like a more serious tone?"

 

[duncan]

If it stays on the serious side it might have a larger impact on mainstream media. The sinical side is great for us and a good laugh but mainstream might take it as just a bunch of wise ass smokers. My 2 pennies

 

[fred]

Serious and objective perspectives would be best to attract and

maintain interest both inside and outside of the Pipe community.

It has the refreshing prospect of clarity of thought in a world

where news broadcasters and writers seek persona status, while

reporting becomes secondary. What we don't need is more propaganda.

 

[admin]

I think I agree with you guys, but did you read the original article? I actually didn't perceive it as being too sarcastic or snarky, but maybe that is because of my bias for our side.

 

[pipetrucker]

I just re-read the article. I read it when it was originally published. I feel the tone is perfect, considering the subject matter.
For the articles being proposed, however, I feel that a serious, fact-based, series of articles, sans any hyperbole (which is, after all, the tool of the antis) are likely to be highly effective.

 

[duncan]

I did read the article and I also thought it had a more serious tone. I believe you hit the nail on the head with the bias playin a part thou.

 

[pstlpkr]

Overall I agree with the other guys when it comes to garnering the attention by the media at large Kevin. One yardstick to effectiveness would be dissenting arguments from "the media".

The articles need to be objective and factual.

Over all a good article however, I think it could use a stronger finish.

The way in which it was concluded was a little on the weak side.

The premise was good but, it really didn't have any teeth.

More objectivity would be required, strengthened by fact will result in a more influential article.

 

[surfmac211]

I agree with it should be kept serious but I do tend to like the snarky/sarcastic remakes in there some to keep it a little entertaining and possibly hit a nerve with some people to have them reading more articles.

 

[unclearthur]

Definitely a serious factual approach . Solid facts to counter a pack of lies.

 

[krgulick]

I would tend to agree with the previous posters that it has to be serious, but present the arguments against the antis with the arguments they have against us. Perhaps a point/counterpoint type argument. Like unclearthur states, present facts against the pack of lies being put out there by the antis.

 

[cortezattic]

I think we should forget about the issues and polemics.

Just pay-off the politicians so they vote in our favor.

Less wind, more win.

 

[chuckw]

Serious and factual. The anti's will use any sarcasm or snarky remarks to demonstrate how far out of touch we may be.

 

[archerdarkpint]

From my perspective, to enter the mainstream, go for the facts yet maintain an even balance between a serious tone artfully seasoned with an "everyman" approach. I'd be more inclined to follow a particular topic or issue if it was presented with points, counter-points and common sense, rather than a one sided supposition based on variables with doublespeak, innuendo and veiled omissions.
One great facet in all of this is it's easier to break down a weakly supported falsehood and then substantiate or illuminate with emerging truth. Numbers don't lie when backed with substance and advocacy is better than implied expertise and superiority. Fluff will drift into the wind when aired out to dry.
Respectfully,
Archer

 

[mlaug]

You can tell Cortez is from Chicago.

 

[admin]

You can tell Cortez is from Chicago.

LOL mlaug!

 

[excav8tor]

So eloquently put Archer, and very succinct.

 

[strongirish]

I would stick with serious but with a little humour added.

 

[dd951]

What Fred and Chuck said