Thanks!

I appreciate the outpouring of support.  Thanks.

Thanks, too, to all the new readers of this blog, brought here by the Mail Tribune.  

The problem I tried to address

Please stick around.  

You can bookmark this blog site and check it daily, or subscribe to get the blog posts sent to you by email.  

Normally about 600-1,000 people see this blog daily.  Way more recently.  

There is a silver lining in the black cloud of being bashed by the dominant media source.  Sometimes it backfires on them.  

That is what this blog is about.  Messaging and politics and unintended consequences.

I try to be objective and fair minded.  I am not a cheerleader for any candidate. I try to observe and describe the sometimes hidden implications of messaging and branding.  


That is what caused me to think there was a destructive "message" hidden inside the Tribune's subscription policy.  A policy that resulted in huge disparity in prices (some people renewing for a year as low as $114 with others at $220, 240, $370, $440) sent an unintended message: that the Tribune wasn't trustworthy and loyal to its longtime customers because the price disparity was just too much, and it penalized long term subscribers. There wasn't a "fair price"; there was a price of whatever the subscriber ended up being billed. That was a dangerous unspoken message, I wrote.

They lay into me.

Once again, here is a link to their editorial denouncing me hard. Click Here.  Lots of people ignore Tribune editorials but this one is extraordinary.  

The editorial is a great example of unintended messages, which turn out to be more consequential than the intended, denoted one.

1.  They communicated they were really defensive about something.  The intemperance was way out of proportion. People called and wrote me, "Boy, you must have really hit a nerve."  And, "They must be desperate to hide something."   

The denoted, objective text of the editorial is that the Tribune had nothing to hide, but the tone of the editorial shouted the opposite, that they were worried about something. The tone implied they wanted to divert attention. The tone raised the question: Why are they so upset?  

2.  They communicated that my comments, and this blog, were significant.  By making this a nasty attack on me, personally, they elevated this blog. They made me a focus. They could have had an editorial or news story that made reference to "comments we have heard" and then addressed the concerns themselves, positioning themselves as earnest community minded folks working to address a problem.  Very appropriate.

Instead, the tone and denoted words of the editorial denounced me as an inaccurate, manipulative nobody who needed schooling, one who disrespected subscribers by saying they were the trusting sort. By coming out guns a-blazing, they gave the unintended message that this blog a force to be reckoned with, and associated me and this blog with disgruntled subscribers.  It turns out there are a whole lot of them. They amplified the issue, challenged subscribers to complain about their personal subscription, and made this blog more visible.

3.  They communicated they were OK with looking like a powerful bully that could do what it wanted.  Remember, my original point was that the Tribune's subscription policy made them appear like one more big corporation, clueless about the reality in a small city that subscribers might compare prices and feel unhappy.  By nastily bashing a critic, they reinforced that image, as if to say "Watch us, the mighty Tribune, squash stupid Peter Sage like a bug."  

Yes.  The Tribune is very powerful.

It was an impressive display of circulation power and vitriol. There was an unintended message sent: we are big and powerful and we don't have to be respectful to critics. We can take them apart and humiliate them. That message accidentally reinforces my original criticism, that they aren't acting like a uniquely trusted community institution, respectful of loyal subscribers,  but rather like a powerful institution that can do what it wants. (By the way: I don't feel humiliated.)

4. They communicated they were hypocritical.  The Tribune champions the First Amendment, open meetings, full disclosure in others.  The editor's email to me--which I reported here in this blog--that they were turning things over to their lawyers and I should govern myself with that looming in the future, is another unintended message. The Tribune lawyer reference reinforces the "powerful bully squashes the lowly bug" image, and gives the additional unintended message that they respect the First Amendment when it suits them, but doesn't respect it when exercised by lowly subscribers and critics like me.  And maybe you sometime.

If they bring legal action against me I will keep readers apprised of how my legal bills accumulate. The Tribune has millions of dollars to spend on legal bills if they want to make an example of me, to show what they can do to intimidate critics. That will be my misery, but at least I can report it and reveal to fellow subscribers how the Tribune treats subscribers who speak up. I don't think of myself as a bug to be squashed, bankrupted, and silenced, but that may be how the Tribune sees me.  We will see.  

"Reverse Favoritism"

Summary:  The Tribune has an excellent case to make that they are a valuable community resource and that people need to pay for subscriptions if it is going to exist.  I agree completely.  I personally think their current system is indefensible. 

They can stick to it and defend it if they wish.  Perhaps a representative of the Tribune would accept an invitation to speak at my Rotary Club, one that has so many members with so many different subscription deals. No doubt they believe they have a good, persuasive case to make. If they can do it nicely I would like to hear it.

I want the Tribune to be as good as it can be.