RiverViewer

The fact is, as I'm sure you're probably better aware than I am, the airwaves are owned by the public. Companies lease those airwaves, and agree to follow certain rules, which rules are established by the people, through the only means they have for setting rules - through their elected representatives. I think most people believe that publically broadcast material ought to conform to some decency standards. Let me state emphatically, I ain't one of them - but I understand folks who are. Most folks think the occasional curse word isn't a big deal, but snuff films and porn are. So, who decides where that line is? Let's keep in mind, this line isn't what material is "appropriate" - this is what material is appropriate for broadcast on publically-owned airwaves. And if you agree that snuff films and porn ought not be broadcast on publically-owned airwaves (or agree that it isn't an unreasonable position), then you agree there should be rules. And unless you believe democracy is a poor way for a people to govern themselves, then I guess you'd have to agree that our elected representatives ought to set those rules. They've chosen to appoint an agency for the purpose of setting guidelines and enforcing those guidelines. I think the guidelines they've set are stupid, capricious and arbitrary, but I can't argue with the principle that the government ought to set rules. As a policy, I'd rather we let a thousand flowers bloom, and let parents realize what they should already realize - it's a minefield out there, and if you're worried about what the kids watch, then you should be aware of what the kids watch. But then, I'm not a parent, which might very well change my perspective on that entirely...

1) I don't believe television news was ever worth a crap. If you depend on TV news for your information, you'll be woefully uninformed. And I believe that's always been true. Perhaps it's even less nutritious today than it's been in the past, but that's like saying they've sucked even more vitamins out of beer. You don't drink beer for its nutrition, and you don't watch TV for full-picture news. 2) Yes, I've heard of Darfur. I've followed the story for years and years now. Let me tell you what story I didn't know much about - the Rwandan genocide. Because in the summer of 1994, I got most of my news from TV - which means I wasn't getting any news. 3) To say there are fewer media outlets available today is just plain wrong. Sure, fewer companies own local television stations - but television is just one source of news - and it's by far the most inept, incomplete and uninformative source. Always has been, undoubtedly always will be. 4) For someone to defend the plethora of networks owned by General Electric, Viacom, Disney, and Fox is beyond any comprehension. Point out to me where I defend them, and I'll grovel for forgiveness. What I've been trying to say is that these companies have arguably taken something useless, and made it even more useless. But they can't turn off the BBC, Corriere Della Sera, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Times of India or Al-Ahram. 5) If it weren't for the internet, we'd really be in the dark. That's like saying, "if it weren't for rain, our crops would really be dry." The internet is the only way to be able to see different points of view on issues - and it's the first time in history that's been possible! Do you think someone in 1985 who got his news from Peter Jennings, the local paper and Paul Harvey's radio broadcast was really a well-informed guy? I'll grant you, maybe he was marginally better informed than someone who does the same thing today, but marginally. The point is, the internet (and to some extent, increased globalization, which allows copies of world newspapers to be sitting in Border's when you walk in this morning) has provided something previously unavailable - actual diversity in news sources. And it's fantastic. So to decry TV news not suddenly serving a market it never served before, which market finally can get what it demands - I'm sorry, that's like complaining you can't flip a pancake with a screwdriver. The whole thing on people watching more TV doesn't address the point at all. My point was that most folks have little interest in world news, until it directly impacts Americans. They never have, and they never will. Sure, in 1797 that was because they were busy clear-cutting a homestead in western Massachussetts, in 1897 it was because they were riding west in a wagon train, and in 1997 because they were watching TV. The point is, most folks weren't interested, and those who were spent their lives frustrated with either no news, were lucky and got a four-paragraph excerpt from the AP in the local paper once a week, or they worked for the State Department. Now, all of a sudden, those folks - more than one may have guessed, actually - are devouring news from across the world. And yet, we're more poorly informed? Dude, Where's My Sense Of Perspective?

So the early 1990's...when there were how many outlets for news? Four broadcast and one cable? And now today there are how many outlets for news? Four broadcast and a dozen cable, plus more if you've got satellite? When again did CBS buy ABC and NBC? I must have missed that transaction...frickin' oligarchy snuck it past me. Yeah, I forget when it was that NPR was taken off the air - wasn't that 1997 some time? Oh, wait, they're still broadcasting - silly me! Yes, there are folks who don't want the government to fund them (with whom I disagree) - of course, since 2% of their budget comes from the federal government (according to wikipedia), I doubt that, even if they succeeded, it would spell NPR's demise. Regardless, the point is, it ain't happened, and it ain't about to happen. Dude, I waited on a phone line for internet news for years. And you know what? There's more to the world than just video! In fact, one can be a pretty well-informed individual without even owning a TV! Without watching video news! Honest! Yes, I too wish more folks were informed about the world around them - but the fact that most folks are interested in going to work, spending time with their families, enjoying some time off now and then, and not much beyond that - that's always been the case, and always will be the case. And that's fine. But to bemoan that fact, and act as though it's something new - that's nuts. And to pretend that, for those who do want to be informed about the world around them, that there's ever been a time when that's more possible - that's also nuts.

1) You can access the internet without broadband. Narrowband might not load CincinnatiRoads.com, but you can still get the BBC. And according to the article you posted, 108MM Americans had access to any news source they were interested in in 2003. You think this isn't unprecedented in the history of the world? 2) According to the site you posted, 227MM Americans, out of 331MM, have internet access. 3) The "VAST MAJORITY" of the rest of the world that lacks internet access is rapidly becoming less vast. Again, according to the site you posted, 816MM out of 6.2B people in the rest of the world have internet access. Do you not think that this is utterly without precedent? 800MM? 13.2% of the world's population? Holy Christ, when have 13.2% of the world's population ever been able to connect with one another directly? Jesus, that's astonishing. Again, with 2/3rds of all Americans having internet access, I have to disagree. You may find some folks who yearn to read international news, and yet have nowhere to go to find it - but that number is unprecedentedly tiny. OK, again, would you please outline for me when exactly this was not the case in our history? Explain again how America used to thrill to tales of foreign news, until Fox News came along and wiped all such interest from their feeble little minds? AAARGH! And please, STOP posting then going back and substantially altering your posts! I spend five or ten minutes responding to something that's now different, and it's really, really frustrating! Again, can you pinpoint the time when this wasn't the case? I'm sorry, I'm a broken record here, but can you pinpoint the time when this wasn't the case?

Er...is it Gannett or Scripps that owns Al Jazeera? Which owns the BBC? The Beirut Daily Star? The Jerusalem Post? Pravda? The blogosphere? Dude, anyone with an ounce of interest can get news from anywhere in the frickin' world. They can talk online with people on the ground in New Orleans during the hurricane. They can see pictures, video, read text, chat, anything, with people all around the globe. They can get email directly from Howard Dean during his campaign, unfiltered by any editor. There has never, in the history of the world, been a time with a freer flow of information than we enjoy today. There has never been a time in the history of the world where the danger of censorship was at a lower ebb. That's a good thing...

I would be especially interested in seeing some examples from the glory days when people had full access to wide-perspective, well-developed diverse sources of news. When exactly was this? The days of three major news networks, two city papers, and nothing else? Honestly, I'd argue we have never had access to more diverse sources of information than we have today, and anyone who asserts otherwise is delusional. A little thing called "the internet" has been catching on for quite some time now - you should check it out! You can actually see what individuals in various parts of the world have to say! It's really crazy...

Ah...given your emphasis on media-market, I'll assume you meant to say African-Americans are a minority in their market, rather than among those "who live within the city limits"...and thus, is your contention that their not giving a shit about the city equates to not giving a shit about its in-large-part-black residents? I can go with that, though I'd attribute it to anti-city, not anti-minority...

1) African-Americans are, statistically, a minority in the city of Cincinnati - but then, so are white folks. 48.8% of the population is one-race white; 46% is one-race black (from the census bureau) 2) What do you base the Enquirer's racism on? I agree they're to the right editorially, that they prefer sensationalism over perspective, negativism over optimism, and I would assert their writers often lack a basic understanding of things like math and logic - but I would be interested in learning how this skews particularly anti-black.

Unfortunately, the decision has to be made to put it somewhere...so we can choose to torpedo a place with actual residents and actual businesses, that are there today - or we can choose to torpedo a place that may possibly one day be considered for theoretical development...to my mind, that's a pretty easy choice. Of course, the county could always buy out Miller-Valentine and put it in the Rookwood Exchange property...

^Well, name the spot, then post the next one!

How about this one - should be an easy one, I just liked the creepy effect...

Billy Cunningham was interviewing mayor Tom Williams yesterday, so I took a late lunch, and took notes during the interview. I'm not a trained reporter, so I wasn't fast enough to get real quotes - sorry about that...anyway, nothing really surprising, except for one interesting accusation... I'll hit the interesting accusation first. He said that he believes there may have been other developers behind the scenes stoking the fires early on. Cunningham used the term "queering the deal," which Williams agreed with. Other item of scandalous interest - some caller said he had a friend who was on Norwood's city council, who said he was promised a condo by the developers in exchange for his vote, and that others took the developers up on that offer. Mayor Williams told the guy, then you need to walk straight down to the county prosecutor's office right now and tell them what you know. But don't sit around spreading stories of corruption like this - if you believe it, report it; if not, then don't spread lies. So, other than that, there was nothing new. He said they followed the law, which was why the Supreme Court decision was so surprising. The trials were patient, thorough, concise, the judge was top notch, everyone had a chance to have his views heard. The decision was upheld over and over in higher courts, because Norwood followed the laws on the books, did everything openly, everything up and up. Then all of a sudden, Kelo came along, and made the issue a political football. (The rest of this will not read like a narrative - again, I'm not a trained journalist! So pardon me for the scatter-shot approach) He said, Norwood is urban - they don't have cornfields to develop into. They're trying to transition from blue collar to mixed use, and he said, "which is the only tool we have." I don't know if he meant mixed use was the only tool they have for growing the tax base, or if eminent domain is the only tool they have for remedying the lack of cornfields - it wasn't clear. Of the three remaining homes, only one is a single-family homeowner. He said the business and the rental property owners "hooked their wagons to the Gambles," implying their cases wouldn't have looked as good politically as a home owner-occupied by a 65 year old couple. When he first met the developers after the ruling, he was amazed - they were perfectly calm. They knew they'd done everything by the book, but they'd lost, and that happens. They have no plans now, except to follow the law. When asked what they can do with the land now, his only suggestion was "winter wheat?" The developers have no plans to offer anything to any of the property owners. That's about it...personally, I can't believe they're going to sit on a $20MM investment...the opportunity costs of that money have got to be well north of $1MM/year - in real estate, maybe twice that. Plus property taxes...but who knows how long this will play out...

Ah, I have my Ingleside buildings messed up...I meant the tall building at the end of the street - that's River Terrace?

Ah, no, but close enough. It's the small turnaround at the end of Salutaris, about 100 feet west of Ingleside. I think the Ingleside Condominiums building would block the view downriver, but then maybe not...but you were awfully, awfully close! Well done! Did you look at a map and reason it out, or recognize the view from having been there? I'll let someone else post the next one, or if nobody steps up, I'll put another up this afternoon...

Carson was saying that it is healed, the doctors have cleared him, but right now he's not confident enough in it to keep his eyes downfield when he thinks someone might be coming at him low. He can run, he can cut, he can certainly throw - he just doesn't have the special sense of indestructibility that you need to stand in a collapsing pocket that extra second that it takes for a receiver to break open...I'm not sure what you do about that...

Is Mt. Lookout area a dumb guess?!?! There are no dumb guesses - only incorrect ones! eh... that's okay, at this point I could probably only give a very general description of where it is! Of course, with your mad mapping skilz, you could figure it out even without being able to remember the spot...

OK, it's time for the 10 hour hint...to be followed by the 24 hour reveal. This shot knocks PigBoy (and his sister!) out of the running for guessing on this one. This was taken at the same spot, looking upriver:

^Yes, indeed...though I'm looking for something a touch more specific! It is publically accessible, just so you know it's not some trick question...

Nope...

I've got one more here prepped for this - have to dig through some pictures tonight to prep more shots for this...and by the way, many thanks to Monte and Jake and BallHatGuy and kendall and Uncle Rando for their shot-posting, and to everyone for playing along! The only thing more fun than posting these pictures is figuring out where they are! So how about this - where was this shot taken from?

That was really funny...especially because I didn't recognize it at all!

Minor league baseball may be popular, but it just isn't in the same league (ha!) as major league baseball. The Mud Hens set another attendance record last year with 557K tickets sold; the Reds, during the worst dog days of the 1990's, never dropped below 1.7MM. Hell, the Montreal Expos moved to DC due to low attendance and no interest - and even then, finishing 18 games under .500, they still sold 750K tickets. Hell, the Dayton Dragons, a frickin' low-A team, has sold out 400+ consecutive games - it is possible. But the Mud Hens, at AAA, don't even sell out, in a 10K seat stadium. When you aren't selling out a 10K seat stadium, when you can't out-draw the frickin' Expo's in their worst years, then I'm sorry, that sport is orders of magnitude less impactful. I'm not saying Toledo shouldn't be ranked higher; I'm not saying college sports can't make a city a great sports town; I'm just saying that while minor league sports can have their appeal - tremendous appeal, as the Mud Hens have shown over the years - they simply aren't in any way comparable to major league sports. There are tons of reasons for it (limited TV and radio, limited media coverage, you're punished when you do well by losing players, you can be the best minor league organization in the country and not win a game, by definition you will never see the best players playing their best game, etc.), but minor league is just not in the same category as major league - not even close.

Indeed...so, it's your turn...or Jake's...or John's, actually...whichever!

Here's a link to the Edge price list that byrnepj got...thanks for digging it up!

Well, I'm going to goose things with another shot...a poor shot, no doubt, but let's see how it goes...can you name the building in the distance (under the street lamp), or the street I was on?