Just to address this. Every newspaper is looking for hits and pageviews and subscribers because it increases the value of their brand and advertising. This is not news. Have you seen all the papers that are folding in America. There's a reason. However, there is a difference between, for example, slideshows of girls in bikinis from an EDM cruise -- something the Press ran recently -- that is clearly an obvious attempt to get eyeballs and a legitimate reported news story like this one. Much of what I write is opinion and the vast majority gets read by very few people. On the rare occasion one of my posts on the Press website does get a ton of hits, it usually is related to tech or a list of something about Houston. I do sports posts on the regular and they often get sparsely read and that's fine. Does the Houston Press want readers? Of course. Does it manufacture NEWS STORIES for the sole purpose of getting hits? Absolutely not. I don't get paid any more for a story that gets 20,000 hits than I do for one that got 20. None of the writers do, so none of us have incentive to sensationalize anything. In fact, this particular story is the least sensational thing I've written in a while. I have lists of 7 things to not see when you visit Houston and stories about east Texas weirdos who steal nurse photos from hospitals and dress up like pregnant women. I've written about the weather and apps I like and the largest skate park in America being built near Greenspoint. Not exactly stuff to send to the Pulitzer committee. For this story, it was refreshing to do some good old fashioned news writing/reporting. So, yeah, if you want to be critical of things the Press writes that seem to written solely for the purpose of getting hits, you can certainly find those stories. Hell, there was a post in the art blog about Dr. Who that got like 100k in hits last week alone (though to be fair, I thought that was a well done post). But, this is the wrong story to be critical about.
Heh, sorry, I didn't realize it was that Jeff. Simple ignorance on my part. I'm a practicing skeptic when it comes to internet-based sports reporting unless I know the source, and I'm still going to continue to take HoustonPress articles with a grain of salt, but I'll take your word for it on this one if you say your sources are legit.
on the op link the pictures on the texans watch party in the bottom right, i pulled that curlyed haird chick a few years ago. when shes not making that stupid squinched picture face she really pretty. here name is gina..
You shouldn't. Both staff writers, Craig Malisow and Steve Jansen, are outstanding reporters. Craig, in particular, might be the best investigative journalist in Houston. Seriously.
Yep. I only read the press because of the investigative stories they run. I take OremLK's posts for a grain of salt....on the beach.
At the end of the day, Les should have never agreed to any deal that did not guarantee TV coverage from the start. Had he known the harden trade would be going down he might have negotiated differently. I've said all along a deal wouldn't get done till baseball season but had no idea that this is how it all went down. Wow. Thanks for the report Jeff
This is just my opinion. I don't really see how the Rockets could be happy with a deal if the Astros are not happy with it. If the Astros hold out for more in the end the Rockets will also get more. For some reason I think the Rockets agreed to the offer knowing the Astros would turn it down. Making the Rockets look like the good guys to their fans while the Astros keep things going to get the better deal for themselves and the Rockets.
If that were true, the Rocket's wouldn't have taken a verbal asswhippin from fans for 2 1/2 months over this. They would have leaked the info early on that the Astros were the bad guys.
According to statements from the three principal parties, including Tad Brown, the report about the Astros killing a deal that was in place is not true. http://www.chron.com/sports/more/ar...N-s-distribution-4208482.php?cmpid=sportshcat Here is an excerpt from the story for those not wanting to read the whole thing "As emotions run high, conspiracy theories run rampant. The most recent came last week, with a Houston Press report that the Astros scuttled an agreement that would have provided CSN Houston carriage on DirecTV for the opening of the Rockets' season. All three local principals - Hutchings, Postolos and Brown – said the report was incorrect. "There was never an agreement in place," Brown said. "There was never anything that was even considered by the (network) board. There is no truth to the story."
no disrespect to jeff but i didn't think jim crane was that stupid. as stupid as les is to start the season with no deal i didn't think he was stupid enough to put himself in that position as madmax stated.
So basically, CSN is asking for $3.40 / month. DirectTV took the Lakers station - a franchise with far more success and popularity - for "almost $4.00" / month. "Fans should feel angry," said Matt Hutchings, CSN Houston's president and general manager. "They should feel they're being cheated by these distributors for not putting this channel and these two teams on the air. That's who they should be angry at." "They're treating Houston differently from other markets," said Astros president George Postolos. "People don't take it kindly in this part of the country to being treated differently than people in the rest of the country are being treated." This sounds like the same whininess that ESPN/LHN has - they just want more than anyone else thinks they are worth. Since these providers unlikely to eat such a big costs, at the end of the day, it will probably cost Houston fans $3-$4 more to watch the same games they used to get on other stations for free.
It's hard. As a consumer I have nothing against paying .40 extra a month, but of course most consumers probably don't feel that way. I'm sure Rockets fans are a minority. This specific matter doesn't affect me as I live in GA, but I hope for those living in those areas, that this matter gets resolved.
No. No they are not. I personally believe that their arrogance (especially toward their "captive" fanbase) has led them to believe they can do anything they see fit. Think about what happened on Wall Street in the years that led up to the financial meltdown. Those guys also believed they were the masters of the universe.
Well, he was either stupid or arrogant enough to believe that he could take the money ($60M), sell out 50 years of NL baseball, raise his hind leg on longtime Astros fans and that folks would swallow that BS "We had no choice" excuse. Last time I looked, the San Diego Padres were sold, weren't required to move and THEY are located on the West coast. So this turn of events does not surprise me in the least.
