Posts Tagged: ‘Tulsa World’

In Which I Respond To Comments To My Letter To The Editor

November 17, 2014 Posted by E. Zachary Knight

Over the weekend, I had a letter to the editor published to both NewsOK and at the Tulsa World. Both sites, published the letter with little modifications. The letter itself is mostly a rehash of my earlier article about Oklahoma’s low voter turnout and its impact on future petitions. It also called for real reform to pass.

However, there was one problem. I wanted to respond to a comment on the Tulsa World which I felt poorly reflected on the current petitioning climate. Tulsa World reader J. Lee wrote:

It appears that many people don’t really care what happens. But that is absolutely no reason to lower the party petitioning burden especially to what it was 40-50 years ago since the population has increased over a million since that time.

Any entity which lowers it standards to appease a few will eventually be left with no standards.

What J. Lee wrote here does a real disservice to those seeking to form a new party in Oklahoma. It is based on the false premise that Oklahoma’s petitioning laws and the change in 1974 was based on some actual reasoning based on population. That is not true at all.

The problem with this is that the Tulsa World’s commenting policy prevents me from responding to this comment directly. The Tulsa World wants me to pay nearly $200 just to comment on articles of interest. That is not happening. So instead, I am responding here in the hopes that interested people will read it and misinformation will be cleared away. If anyone out there has a subscription or still has commenting enabled because they have not reached their monthly ration of articles, feel free to respond to J. Lee with the following:

Let me lay out a few facts for you. I hope that I won’t have to explain any of this too much.

Population of Oklahoma:
1970 – 2,559,063
2010 – 3,751,351
Percent Changed – 46.6%

Voting Population of Oklahoma:
1972 Presidential Election (last election before new rules went into effect) – 1,057,396
2012 Presidential Election (most recent similar election) – 1,334,872
Percent Changed – 26.2%

1974 party petitioning requirement – 5,000 signatures or 0.47% of the 1972 vote
2014 party petitioning requirement – 66,744 or 5% of the vote cast in 2012
Percent Changed – 1,235%

If we wanted to adjust the number of signatures needed to form a new party based on population, then we would have this amount:
5,000 plus a 46.6% change = 7,330 signatures today.

However, if we base it off of voting population, we would get this number:
5,000 plus a 26.2% change = 6,310

Both of those calculations are far far smaller than the current signature requirement that is 1235% higher than it was in 1972.

So do you want to rethink your position?

Again, I would love to respond myself. When I aired my issues with the Tulsa World on Twitter, their only response was to upsell me on a subscription. They offered no real solution. I guess, if anyone wants a real conversation on a news site, they will have to go with NewsOK where all you need is a free account to read everything and comment to all articles.

Wally Hates Paywalls – Goes One Step Further

May 12, 2011 Posted by E. Zachary Knight

Someone at the Tulsa World needs to actually read the comics section of their paper. Yesterday’s Dilbert Comic Strip was about paywall systems such as the one the Tulsa World recently introduced.

Wally Kills the Pay Wall

It is so strange that the big wigs at the Tulsa World don’t understand how adding a paywall to their website will not make them any more money. What it is going to do is cost them money and lose them readers.

I am not one to criticize anyone’s political view points (okay, maybe I am a little) but it seems to me that if the Tulsa World is losing money it is not because of a lack of a paywall. I think the issue is with their overtly Liberal  bias in their news reporting in an ever growing Conservative state.

Creating a paywall is not going to suddenly make those Conservative news readers want to read their news. It will move them faster to competing news sources like the Daily Oklahoman that actually understands the need to freely distribute the news to the people.

So come on Tulsa World, get rid of the paywall already.

Update: Progress on the Tulsa World’s New Pay Wall

April 19, 2011 Posted by E. Zachary Knight

I have made some progress on the Tulsa World’s new pay wall. I have been looking at this for a while. At first I thought they were doing something intelligent by require users to login and using server side sessions to determine if they load content or not.

This is not so.

Using the Web Developer addon for Firefox, I found that by disabling cookies, refreshing the page and re-enabling cookies I can read the articles when I am locked out. This is not an ideal solution, but it is a temporary fix.

Web Developer: Disable Cookies

I am still trying to get a toolbar bookmarklet functioning to make this a seamless process for anyone to use without having to use Firefox or install the Web Developer Addon. I just haven’t got the right commands going yet.

Javascript is not my strongest programming language, but I know enough to get this working, it will just take me some time.

Update: I have found the cookie that is responsible for displaying the content. It is named “MEYED” Deleting that cookie and refreshing the page provides the content, but there is still something on the page that forces a refresh and blocks the content again.

I have made some progress getting a bookmarklet working but right now it is not very useful. I hope to have it finished by the end of the week.

Tulsa World Hates Their Customers

April 14, 2011 Posted by E. Zachary Knight

Not that I read their news much at all let alone online, the Tulsa World has decided to wage war on their readers by forcing a subscription in order to read more than 10 articles written by their staff in a 30 day period. They announced this subscription “service” (Warning: This announcement is written by a TW Staffer and if you have read more than 10 articles in the last 30 days, you cannot even read this) on March 31, 2011.

This come shortly after the New York Times announced pretty much the same thing, but they allow 20 articles a month for non subscribers. (more…)