Lefty Lou, Thankful but Worried?

by lewwaters

Brancaccio FiatAfter Lefty’s usual token Thanksgiving editorial and the praise of his beautiful daughter, we see nothing of any real value. He should have stuck with praising his daughter and just left it at that.

But that is not Lefty as he tries to convince what few readers he still has of his relevancy. A relevancy he seems worried about.

I say worried because of you drop down to the end of his screed you read, “It’s true, we don’t have as many print readers as we used to. But when you include our social media numbers, it’s actually pretty close.”

It doesn’t dawn on him that delivering such an inferior product as we see daily in the Lazy C, many former readers have left seeking objective, balanced reporting elsewhere, no longer buying the paper he writes for and manages.

As my readers know I have been blogging much less due to smears from those I used to support earlier this year and have made the point that they succeeded only in shooting themselves in the foot since in the 6 ½ years this blog has been running, I have exceeded 700,000 views.

Paltry numbers to a mainstream media website in that time, I know. But for a local, small time, one-man blog, not to shabby.

But apparently enough to worry ol Lefty as I received an email from him recently;

“Hey, someone just called to say you were saying you’ve had 700,000 views ‘over the years’.”

“Don’t you think — to be fair — you should break that number down? If I recall you get about 60,000 views a year. That breaks down to about 170 views a day. And as is true with most web sites or blogs it’s likely you have a few fans who check in more than one. So let’s say only twice although it’s very likely you have a few folks who check in with you much more.”

“That means you likely have about 90 unique visitors a day. Actually quite good for a local blog. But it’s about 90 Lew.”

“Just in case you wanted to do the math.”

“Happy Thanksgiving! And again, 90 is really very good for a local blog.”

Now, ask yourself, why would he be worried about this blog and my numbers? Why show the least bit of concern about what I claim?

And why try to marginalize my blog by fabricating that 60,000 number and then ask for a “breakdown” too further erode the numbers to a much lesser 90 from his own imagination?

Note too, since he mentions “social media” in his screed, he does not apply anything near that in his inflation of Lazy C readers, I guess not realizing the same formula must apply to their own online site, multiple visits by the same people throughout a day.

But of course, he supplies no actual numbers relating to their own readership, does he?

Also ignored by Lefty is how much I cut back on posting new posts this year.

Anyway, I replied with a screenshot of my stats from that day and received back;

“Ha! Looks like I was about exactly right. Shows 85. Again, those actually are pretty darn good numbers for a blog but maybe just a little disingenuous for you to use the 700,000 and not the 85 a day,” along with, “And let me know when you ‘report’ that 85 number so I can check your blog out that day. Thanks!”

Knowing that there was nothing “disingenuous” about my claim of views; I sent him back a daily count of views and visitors, the lowest day being 103 visitors with an average of about 218 in the 27 days noted.

He responded with, “You’re still getting about 60,000 views a year right?”

Growing a little tired of his effort at slighting, I gave him links to the review pages set by WordPress for the past two years, 2012 showing about 160,000 views and 2013 with about 130,000.

That elicited the response of;

“Great! Fair enough. You’d simply double my numbers then. Little more. The math says you’re getting — on average — 356 visits a day. Not unlike any blog or web site, those aren’t unique visits. Most of your followers visit you multiple times a day. But even if they only visited you twice a day, that would mean you have 178 different folks looking at you every day.”

“Again, for a local blog, that’s very good! Like any local blog it was never intended or expected to reach a mass audience like mainstream media. But it is a bit difficult for any local blogger to argue that they’re big time players.”

“And I don’t say that to suggest local bloggers are unimportant. Frankly I think they’re very important. But that’s a different point than saying you’re hitting the masses.”

In my estimation, he’s either worried or so small minded that he would even be concerned about this small local blog. I say that because nowhere have I ever claimed being a “big time player” or “hitting the masses.”

I am not naive enough to think my free blogsite that only costs $99 a year is comparable to either the Lazy C or more costly sites such as Couv.com, both of which employ paid staff.

But it is apparent that my efforts have worried some, for whatever reason they have.

Be it Lefty Lou trying to belittle my hobby or operatives from the CCGOP smearing me because I do not toe the line and display objectivity in exposing when they operate underhandedly too, my little hobby seems to have caught their attention, even though I hold no delusions of shutting either down.

In my final reply to Lefty I said,

“You’re assuming many arguments I have never made. If you recall a few years ago, I told you I never had any delusions that my blog would shut down your paper.”

“What I hope to do is offer the balance you lack and not be a mouthpiece for either party.”

I will grant you that back in 2008 when I began this blog, I did have intentions of promoting the Republican Party, but saw the dark underside of them as I had years earlier of the Democrats and decided to just write about issues of interest to me and give my opinion on what matters to me.

Initially I did send out invitations for others to write on the blog with the intent of hopefully growing one day to be a larger scale site, but with no takes in the two years that offer was out, it was withdrawn and I settled on just writing myself, occasionally accepting submitted posts.

And the blog steadily grew to the point of the over 700,000 views I spoke of earlier.

And that seems to have rubbed some the wrong way with their efforts at belittling and smearing.

In the end, their efforts only make each look small, very small as they will not gain any control over me or force me to either close down the blog or cover issues how they want me too.

As I wrote months ago, I will write when I want, if I want and how I want.

I have no favorites and even though I lean conservative, they will receive no special favors in giving them a pass should their underhanded tactics continue.

Be they elected officials, newspaper editors or party leaders; you’re open game here when I feel you screwed up.

And as for the paper, if you are concerned over this small time blog site, maybe you need look deeper into your mirror at why you are losing readers hand over fist.

This blog doesn’t hurt you. You hurt yourself with your one-sided reporting, favoritism to the Democrats and obsessive smears of select individuals while you raise your blinders to corruption elsewhere.

Clean up your own act instead of worrying about a small time blogger.

11 Comments to “Lefty Lou, Thankful but Worried?”

  1. The papers only hope is for a giant increase in pet bird sales because the paper makes good birdcage liner.

  2. Wrapped fish in their pages once. Took forever to get the smell out of the dead fish

  3. Good one, Lew..

  4. 100 unique views/day probably works out to 1000 unique occasional readers. Not bad. How many people can say they have 1000 people who actually give a shit what they think? Good for you!

  5. A year or so ago I didn’t read your blog but then one of your articles was pointed out to me and I started to look at your blog. I liked what I read and that is why I have your comments sent to my email so I don’t miss your articles. I never stop to pick up a paper anymore and I seldom look at their internet news especially since they charge now. It would be interesting to know how much of a hit they took when they announced that. Your articles are relevant and they only offer coupons which is the way they try to sell their subscriptions. I’d rather read what you have to say when I need local news.
    Just one of the 700,000.

  6. I started reading your blog when I was considering my escape from California — and the political viewpoint was quite refreshing.

    FWIW, when I moved here, I looked at a few editions of local (to the region) papers (from both sides of the river) — they were in the RV Park “hospitality room” where I waited for the Real Estate agent to pick us up in the morning… I saw that all of them suffered from the usual biased reporting that infects all of the main stream media (that’s really the “left stream” media). I did not subscribe to any of these newspapers. (Note: I gave up subscriptions to biased newspapers sometime after the 2000 election. The “Bush Derangement Syndrome” evident in the papers made be notice just how biased their reporting had become.)

    Now that I’ve moved here (for about 2-1/2 years now), I regularly received the “North County” throw-away from the Columbian and the weekly Reflector. The ‘North County” paper reflects the slanted editorial policy that apparently is rampant at the Columbian. I spend about 38 seconds a week with that paper as I glance at the headlines on the way to the recycle bin. (Advertisers, take not. I spend ZERO TIME with the ads wrapped inside the North County paper.)

    The Reflector appears to be less biased and has had some good articles on local issues (particularly on Battle Ground — and also on the other Clark County small cities (Ridgfield, La Center, and Yacolt). There are articles on C-Trans and other county-wide issues. For the most part, bias, if any, is not especially egregious. The paper also attempted to educate about the charter — and the owner wrote a special editorial giving a specific analysis of the charter and his recommendation to vote against it. (Too bad more folks hadn’t read it.)

    I operate a web site (since 1997 or so) that gets about 80,000 “visits” each year. (It’s been more and it’s been less.) Considering the niche market I’m in, it’s a satisfying number, but hardly the zillions that big sites get. On this record, over ten years 700 or 800 thousand “visits” seems feasible. (I’m not going to dig through the prints of the stats to count ’em.) It seems rather uncharitable of “lefty” to challenge your counts. (And, to be “transparent” the fuzzy math that affects my counts and your counts undoubtedly affect the biased local paper’s site as well. It is the nature of the internet.)

  7. Loony Lou is assuming you have viewers who visit your site multiple times daily. Why? You can assume they visit the site to seriously read the posts or to mockingly laugh. You can assume they visit three times a day. Or four. Let’s assume only slobbering idiots visit and drool all over their keyboards. Once, like Lou, you start assuming, you are not required to make sense. You can assume two-headed calves make up most of the readership. Lou has two rules:
    !. Belittle anyone you find annoying, and don’t play fair. Be a pit bull.
    2. Never break rule no. 1

  8. When Laird left, it seemed to me that it was questionable whether it really was Jayne that replaced Laird or whether it was Aaron Corvin. Reason being: a couple of weeks it was “port & economy reporter” Corvin whose writes were on the C’s online carousel, instead of Jaynes. Anyway, whatever it was, I guess they got that straightened out. The thing of it was, that “reporter” Corvin’s writes were mostly negative opinions about Republican’s, and had little to do with reporting business news. The kind of thing that you’d have expected from opinion writer Laird.

    Then there’s the Columbian blogs, where blog meisters and tweeters — who are alleged reporters in another reality — unload on Madore and company, with the predictability and regularity of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture cannons; while conductor Lou waves the ole baton 24/7. Credibility. Fairness. They’ve shown that they’ve got no objectivity and cannot be trusted to impartially report on the time of day when they alternately take up the mantle of “journalist”. I once read that PBS’s Jim Lehrer didn’t vote, because he wanted to maintain his neutrality and objectiveness as best he could. Journalist? Reporter? I think they’re the same thing. Whatever it is; the Columbian doesn’t have any.

    Thanks for your own blog Lew. Much better than the local excuse for a newspaper in many ways.

  9. Lou’s obsession with Clark County Conservative is pretty amusing. I’d say that he must feel threatened by CCC – otherwise what is the purpose of questioning your numbers? Don’t be surprised if he hits you up for a job one of these days.

  10. He doesn’t meet any qualifications I would have.

    I would first require a bit of decency and objectivity, neither of which he seems to have

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: