"No response on the land use/transportation coverage and regarding the car columns, was told those items are part of the advertising operation."
Funny, it was only yesterday I noticed the "Autos" section in the Cap Times, recalled that want-ads make up a significant portion of newspaper revenues (and that autos-for-sale ads make up most of the want-ads), and realized why outsiders to car-culture don't stand a chance of getting newspapers to cover issues involving transportation objectively: if newspapers did cover transportation issues objectively, they would be pushing away the people that are paying for the paper. About two weeks ago, I read a reader view in the WSJ that expressed outrage over the paper's use of the word "crash" when applied to situations where operation of a motor-vehicle results in damage, injury, or death - the proper term for such an event is "accident" according to the author. If this is the type of reader that the newspapers are making their money off of, then it is in the interests of the newspaper to call such events "accidents", no matter how much proof exists that this word is commonly interpreted as exculpatory. Bridget, the solution to this problem is for you, and everyone else on this list with information to share, to start posting your thoughts on http:\\www.madvelocity.com , Madison's up-n-coming objective source for land-use/transportation coverage, and all other things bikie. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
