Saturday, February 21, 2009

SLTribune - WEB ONLY Editorial Against SB 208


The Salt Lake Tribune posted an editorial against SB 208 yesterday afternoon. Their argument is not enough people use the Internet to justify moving legal notices to a state website. Ironically this editorial was posted as a WEB ONLY editorial.  (See Here).  

The Tribune opines SB 208 would disenfranchise 70 percent of adults over the age of 65 whom all get their news via newspapers.  So why push your argument only to the Internet, if the people whom you want to speak out against this bill don't have Internet access?  I guess the Internet was just a faster and easier way of getting your message across, not to mention cheaper.

SB 208 would transfer the publishing of public notices in newspapers to a state website.  The idea would be to cut the cost of public notices and make it easier for Utahns to find the needed information.  The Tribune argues there is no guarantee this will be cheaper and their soon to be released website is much better.  However what they don't tell you is there is legislation to remove the current public notice fee cap (See SB 161); which would allow them to charge more for public notices.  If their website is going to be cheaper, why do they want to remove the cap to charge more?

I am sure this editorial will be published in the Tribune either Saturday or Sunday, but it is quite ironic it was a web only special to begin with.


2 comments:

Foiguy said...

Let's not the facts get in the way of a good story.

Facts about SB208. BenJoe makes a big deal about the fact that the Trib put up its editorial on legal notices on the Web only first. The paper then followed it up with a printed editorial. Hand it to BenJoe for the spin. Instead of negative spin, I believe it shows that news"papers" get the fact that readers are on the Web and in print. BenJoe wants to make it seem that only bloggers know how to communicate online. The fact is, newspaper readership is larger than ever because of the online and paper components. What proponents of SB208 want to do is put in on the web only. Its an elitist and exclusive argument. Why not use both? Senators this week have been saying that society is not ready to go to Web only notices. Maybe someday, but not yet.

Second point. BenJoe's linking SB208 with SB161 shows he hasn't spent any effort to find out the facts. SB161 only deals with very small entities -- 4th and 5th class cities. Its effect would be small. The 20-year-old cap has a disproportionate effect on small rural newspapers. No such statutory cap exists on what larger entities charge for legals from larger entities. That said, newspapers have frozen their rates for the past 6-7 years and charge even less than non-profit rates.

I happy to talk to anyone who really desires the facts.

Thanks,
Joel Campbell
foiguy@gmail.com
801-362-4298

BenJoeM said...

Joel,

Thanks for coming to the blog.

Your information is important for us to further the debate. Though I still agree with SB208, I appreciate the clarification to SB161.

Thanks again.