Talk:The Arcata Eye

There is an active, but minority, contingent that believes that the City of Arcata is a corrupt institution and that the Arcata Eye is an active participant in this corruption. This group has given little evidence of there claims beyond opinions. The majority of the people living in Arcata do not believe the city or the paper to be corrupt and take much of their local news from the paper (thus the paper of record line). Therefore, this entry will likely continue to be the traget of POV attacks.

I'm currently leaving in the line about funding from Robin Arkley and the timber industry. However, I would like ot see a citation of this piece of information if it is in fact true. I would also like to point out that both Robin Arkley and the timber industry (mostly PALCO) are major funders of many papers and groups in Humboldt County. This fact has still not stopped these papers from supporting many views different from these funders. --Metatree 23:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I did some wikifying of this page and took an interest in it on that account, despite the fact that I have never been to Arcata nor seen a copy of the paper itself (though I did research its website quite thoroughly before I did the wikifying). More recently I took out some blatant POV stuff but left "tabloid" (although I had previously used the word "newspaper"). "Tabloid" can be taken as a purely factual description of the format, although the term "tabloid press" has a certain pejorative connotation. I see you have reinstated the statement that it is the "paper of record for Arcata". When I did the wikifying, I left this in the text, though someone else deleted it more recently. However, it did read like POV to me, unless there is something to back it up. I'll follow developments with interest as I have absolutely no axe to grind on this subject. Bluewave 08:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think having someone doing wikifying and watching who is not involved in Arcata or its politics is a very good idea. Tabloid: A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material. The Arcata Eye's opinion pages can be heated and some articles have lapsed toward sensational when heated topics are being covered (Arcata is a little town with a lot of heated topics, stemming from the generally liberal/alternative attitude and the fact that a large majority of the population is VERY involved in politics; Arcata is a small town but it is not sleeply nor is it normal). However, much of the Arcata Eye's bulk is devoted to regular day to day, week to week town news. It is devoted solely to Arcata news and it is the only paper that covers Arcata extensively. Therefore, while the newspaper is a bit colorful (much like the town it covers) it IS the town newspaper. I use the term "paper of record" (and this is perhaps not the best term) to convey this fact. "Paper of record" is usually a term used to refer to a periodical that one would turn to in order to know what happened when in a certain place, and the Eye certainly fills this role. I think a better term would be the more boring, but probably more accurate, statement that the Arcata Eye is the town newspaper. Strangely, that term has incited as much POV attack as the "paper of record" term (see Arcata, California). Anyway, I'm not opposed to removing the term, but the concept should be conveyed that the Arcata Eye is the only paper that exhaustively covers Arcata news, not one among several, but the only one. All other "Arcata papers" are either special interest 'zines that only cover very specific topics, or, like the North Coast Journal, are devoted to covering the entire region and only cover Arcata news when it is relevant to the region. In other words, the Arcata Eye is the town newspaper.--Metatree 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arcata Eye funding, direct quote from Kevin Hoover:
 * "Our timber company funding consists of one 2x3 ad for Britt Lumber, a subsidiary of Pacific Lumber. That brings in about enough money to buy our fax paper and a cup of coffee each week.


 * "Those Plazoid kids are so fun. But they say anything, repeat it and, it seems, eventually come to believe it. For what I do, I have to deal in facts, not folklore. I do run free ads for the Plazoid every once in a while, though, just because I like zines. But they seem to have given up on the print version - I haven't seen one for months, alas.


 * "As far as Rob (Arkley), I've never gotten a dollar from him. He has his own paper now, anyway, and we compete against them for ads, so I doubt that he'd be interested in helping us. I am buddies with many members of the Eureka Reporter's editorial staff, and that of the Times-Standard, Journal, Mack Press, Beacon, Indie... etc.


 * "So if it matters, that line in the Wiki entry is inaccurate. We pay our bills (to the extent that we can) with ads from local small businesses.


 * "Take care,


 * Kevin"
 * --Metatree 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kevin doesn't deny investment from Robin Arkley Sr., Rob's father, or from Alex Stillman, who has bought up much of the choice real estate around the Plaza.


 * Neither can you prove that he DOES get funding from the senior. I'm waiting for it. Second, if you or anyone else who edits this page would like to cut the crap and actually discuss these issues rather than entering obviously slanderous statements about the Arcata Eye then I'd be happy to discuss and work with reasonable information. At the moment, however, there is so much junk that rides along with possibly reasonable ideas, that they are not really worth considering. --Metatree 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When do we get to see the proof from you to back up what is just your own point of view, clearly that of some yuppie toady of Kevin Hoover who can't bear to see any balance.


 * I'm not at sure what you mean by balance. Your view of balance appears to be so slanted that it topples. Also, my edits do take into account reasonable evidence, as well as several points of view that residents of Arcata have, that includes the line noted that some people consider the police logs to be bigoted. This use of language is proper. Further, you continually assert that the people of Arcata hate the Arcata Eye, which is certainly not the case, especially given it circulation numbers. In fact, the only people who I can think of that dislike the Eye are the small group of people who support the Plazoid. Nevertheless you continual attempt to insult me and disregard the policies of Wikipedia show exactly where you stand in terms of proper conduct. Your actions speak for themselves.--Metatree 04:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Circulation numbers mean nothing when the boxes are full of papers for the whole week. Do I have to take time-lapse pictures of his racks to prove this?


 * The majority of the Arcata Eye's circulation comes from direct mailings to households. And as to personal attacks on me. I would refer you to No personal attacks policy, please read it carefully. Anonymous IP addresses are also subject to the policy.--Metatree 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to 66.42.17.116: The Eye IS a newspaper. You have no proof that Robin Arkley funds the Eye. The crabs ARE a semi-pro team. "Abusive" is POV without specific evidence. Again, I note that most readers receive the Eye through the mail so untouched papers on racks is meaningless. If Rebecca S. Bender quit then write something reasonable about it. "The more colorful side" is a quote from the citation immediately previous to the statement and I have added quotation marks to reflect that. The gain in popularity and size is an historical fact (note this is the history section) regardless of current sales. I would challenge you to find another paper that covers the Arcata as extensively as the Eye. "Low ethical standards" is POV without evidence. So far the Plazoid is the only entity that has publicly called the Eye bigoted so that statement is reasonable. Plazoid was not, in fact, coined by Hoover no matter what you'd like to pin on him, so you can accuse him of using it, you can say that many people do not like or support the term, but you cannot place it's creation on him. Homeless people do read the eye and some like it, you do not have final say what every homeless person thinks. The opinions you express are so biased and full of POV (please see Wikipedia policies on the matter) that any discussion about actual balance was thrown out by YOU a long long time ago.--Metatree 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

65.147.20.35: you are adding POV into articles, please refer to wikipedian policy on the matter: Neutral point of view, NPOV tutorial --Metatree 05:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)