Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Local business needs your help

Local entrepreneur Rob Pyles and his Audissey Guides are one of the finalists in Forbes Magazine's Boost Your Business Contest. Audissey offers downloadable podcasts of walking tours of cities, historic sites and more. Check out their web site here.

A group of 1,500 businesses has been whittled down to just five in the competition, with $100,000 going to the winner. The contest is partially decided by Internet voting, which can be done here. You can watch a video of Rob in New York City to pitch the idea to a panel of judges here.


Anonymous said...

Oh Wow!
Everyone jump up, the Messiah Jim has spoken and needs our help.
This is breaking news.
Oh, wait! No it's not! That's right I read this in, wait for it, wait, The F#$%ing East Boston Times three weeks ago.
I guess if you really wanted to help the kid out Jim you would have put aside your grudge against the Times and put a link to the Times story that came out weeks ago.
But I guess you're that petty.
To bad, perhaps more people could of voted if you weren't such an ass$%$#!
To everyone else, vote for Rob he's a good kid with a great business.

Jim said...

Please...Get hold of yourself.

On Sept. 30 I was emailed by a friend of Rob Pyle who asked me to put something up. I said I would, but as often happens it slipped my mind. A few days ago Rob himself emailed, and so I posted this. What's the problem?

Anonymous said...

The problem is that you want to run a blog yet you don't report on business thats important to East Boston. I know your going to say"its my sandbox", but hell play right in your box.

Hubster Critic and Fan said...

No doubt anon at 10:21 PM is a bit angry and the comment is quite sarcastic...but a little credit where credit is due wouldn't be the worst thing in the world Jimbo! Here is an example of something that both you and the Times actually agree on. Moreover, it was a noteworthy story that did not fit into the category of dribble (that not just the Times is guilty of by the way). Sure, you have given the Times fans every good reason to call you out on this one...had you simply mentioned that this was already covered or at least recognized the obvious worth of their story, the criticism you receive for taking your shots at the Times' editors and writers would be less valid. Seems to me that the score is even. Just a thought!

Matthew said...

Why is everyone so mean to Jim?

As a newer (4 years) resident of East Boston it is sad to see old grudges being expressed so cruelly. I think we can all agree that Jim and the Times both want to improve East Boston, but they have different ideas of how it should be done. It is good to have a voice to counter the Times, just as it is good to have a local paper. Thanks for using your personal time, Jim, to keep us updated of a lot of what is going on in our neighborhood.

Now go vote for Audissey!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing this - they just recently made the final 5, so it is still a timely post.

Jim said...

I appreciate the comments at 10:08 a.m., but I'm not sure what kind of "score" is being kept. I think I rarely "take shots at the Times' editors and writers"; instead, I make some factual observations.

I'm not sure what you want me to do: mention every time the Times -- or the Post-Gazette, the Globe, Herald, WBUR, CNN, etc., have said something on a particular topic? Now if I had discovered the Audissey story in the Times, rather than via an email first from a friend then from the owner, I would have mentioned that I saw it there, as I have in the past.

I posted the comments at 10:21 p.m., but I ask that you refrain from the implied obscenities, not because I want to whitewash anything, but in this instance they just weren't necessary. There's plenty of other words that make the same point.

Finally, at 9:02 a.m., the comment says, " want to run a blog yet you don't report on business thats important to East Boston." First, for the umpteenth time, I am not a reporter. Second, and more important, the point of this blog from day one is for me to write about whatever is on my mind, not to necessarily report on business that is important to anyone except me.

I have been able to mention happenings and issues relevant to local residents -- and I am happy to do so -- but if you choose to check out the blog be aware that its primary mission is for me to shoot my mouth (fingers?) off.

Anonymous said...

What's important here is that we vote for an Eastie business. The article that ran in the Times a few weeks ago was for the semi finals. Audiseey Guides made it to the finals and neds our vote AGAIN! They are now one of 5 teams, so please vote again (even if you read it in the Times a few weeks ago or on the back of some bathroom stall) they need our votes!

N.starluna said...

Anonymous @ 10:21: You seem to take interpret everything on this blog as a criticism of the Eastie Times. And you seem to take that personally.

There's no other way to say this except bluntly: it's not always about you. This blog posting certainly was not.

Hubster Critic and Fan said...


You say that you are "not sure what you want me to do: mention every time the Times -- or the Post-Gazette, the Globe, Herald, WBUR, CNN, etc., have said something on a particular topic?"

Not at all. But I don't recall seeing as much criticism of those outlets as I have of the Times either. Do you mean to tell us that you think the PG is any different than the Times from a quality standpoint? Because I just can't recall the last time you have taken them to task for "bad reporting" or "slanted editorials" (which by definition are what editorials are). I think we both know they have had their fair share - doesn't make them a bad newspaper - just makes the motivation behind your comments about the Times a bit more obvious.

You say that if you saw the "Audissey story in the Times, rather than via an email first from a friend...[you] would have mentioned that [you] saw it there, as [you] have in the past." Really? When was the last time you mentioned seeing something in the Times that you were not being critical of? For someone who pays so much attention to the Times stories, I am not sure how you missed it!

I am just calling them like I see them Jimbo!

I'm Still a fan - but sometimes I have to be a critic.

Thanks - stay well.

Jim said...

Actually I was much harsher on the Post-Gazette back on Nov. 17, 2008, calling it an "insipid, homely, narrow-minded weekly fishwrap..." Did you miss that?

Editorials are, of course, supposed to be slanted. They are opinion pieces. But they should be ground at some point in reality.

Last summer I wrote about an ad for a "chiromazia" that I saw in the Times without being critical of the paper. I've never said that nothing in there is worth a look, but I'm not sorry about pushing it to do a better job.

"...just makes the motivation behind your comments about the Times a bit more obvious."

Please share with me what motivation you imagine I have -- besides being honest about what I see?

Hubster Critic and Fan said...

You are making my point for me I suppose. November 17, 2008 as in 1 year ago? Was that the last time you were critical of the PG or was that just an example?

Because if it were the last time, then am I to assume that you have not read the PG at all since then and have only read the Times?

And if you have read the PG as much as the Times, then am I to understand that you believe nothing in a year's worth of their past editions warranted the same level of criticism that you have so often bestowed upon the Times?

If that is not the case, (i.e. you believe there has been plenty to criticize the PG about), then just tell why we have not seen similar Times caliber critiques of the PG in almost a year?

Without any logical explanation for that, it would seem that your motivation is a personal dislike of the Times, their editors, publishers, and/or reporters at the very least - which is fine - but just say so and say why.

Personally, I don't care either way how you feel - I read the Globe and the Phoenix for news, and the Times and PG for shear entertainment and some local perspectives.

But there comes a point in time when the distinctive bright line between saying you want them to be a better newspaper and just being pompous and overly critical becomes blurred and unless you can tell us that November of last year was not the last time the PG caught your ire for something they wrote or how bad they wrote it, then I think we have reached that point Jimbo.

Thanks again.

Jocelyn said...

Thanks for the alert...I don't read the Times so I didn't know about the contest.

Jim said...

The Times is actually much better than the Post Gazette. The PG does not really gather and present news. Instead, it publishes submissions -- many of them parochial, ignorant rants -- and community notices. Therefore, there's no point in calling attention to its journalistic failings because it practices virtually no journalism. The Times does practice journalism, though it often comes up short.

That, and the fact that I usually don't see the PG, while I generally do see the Times, are the reasons I don't discuss the PG that often. The Times frequently makes me crazy, but the PG makes me nauseous.

Anonymous said...

Jimbo, please ignore these fools who have no real basis to attack you. I will give you a real example how the Independent Newspaper is a joke. If you go back to election day in the Revere Journal, you will find the whole front page is filled with ads. Imagine that, the whole front page with no leading story.
This is a fact on that day, you can look it up. The owners are the same as the Times which basically run ads and have NO stories. Don't be mad John and Josh because believe me you guys run a soap paper and NOT a newspaper.
Jim, at least you don't make believe you run a paper or make believe you are a reporter.

Anonymous said...

Jimbo, I love the fact that the Times really take themselves serious! Can you believe that they think that they really have a real newspaper? Or they have real reporters? Just think who they have there, no names mentioned.
You can always find at least 2 of them at Rino's always eating. Oh yeah, thats right, thats reporting1 What a joke.

Anonymous said...

Two people can't have lunch now!

Hubster Critic and Fan said...

So much for moderating the personal attacks Jimbo. Seems anon @ 9:59am is making it pretty personal against Josh and John - and of course no surprise that you posted it. Once again making my point for me.

Jim said...

When I say personal attacks I mean non-factual unrelated comments about looks, family, intelligence, etc. or threats, slanders, accusations and venomous rantings. You don't have the unpleasant task of reading all of the comments that I delete. Trust me, I even, on occasion, attempt to spare those I disagree with from such unfair and inappropriate attacks.

Hubster Critic and Fan said...

Jimbo you say "When I say personal attacks I mean non-factual unrelated comments about looks, family, intelligence, etc. or threats, slanders, accusations and venomous rantings."

I have met John Lynds a number of times and have read a number of his stories over the years - many of which I enjoy - some of which I don't agree with. Either way, I think most people consider him to be a "real reporter" - albeit for a community newspaper. It is what it is. Maybe he's not the best - but certainly he is not the worst. So why don't you view the comment at 9:59 or the earlier comment suggesting that he is "make believe reporter" not a personal attack?

Again, your choice of what gets posted appears to support my premise that your motivation is something personal with the Times, their publisher, editors and reporters.

Anonymous said...

This is the burning question: since the mayor had his knee surgery, who's eating with Josh and John?

Anonymous said...

In case you missed it Jim!

Anonymous said...

"Hubster Critic and Fan", for the sake of accuracy, you need to change your name to "Hubster Critic."

Jim said...

Hubster Critic and Fan:

I'm telling you straight up what my motivation is: I'd like to read the best newspaper possible in my neighborhood.

I haven't criticized anyone's legitimacy, but the story on the casino gambling hearing that only quoted a Suffolk Downs employee does not pass muster as an even-handed and informative story. It just doesn't.

As for whoever is leaving the snarky comments about dinner at Rino's: it is, I think, a legitimate issue to wonder if one can report with skepticism and without bias -- as a reporter should -- on those who one regularly breaks bread with, no?

Anonymous said...

"regularly breaks bread with?" How stupid a comment is that?

Are you implying the Mayor has lunch every week with the Times? Do you think the Mayor never had lunch with the Globe or Herald Editors or Reporters? Just wondering. I think I am with Hubster Critic on this one - seems pretty personal Jimbo.

Anonymous said...

How is the Times even considered a newspaper? They all (so-called reporters) eat with all the elected at Rino's. Jimbo you made my point, how can they break bread with them then run a story on them if its not a popular one?
Lets face it the Times is now a tabloid and nothing else, thats my opinion

Jim said...

"Do you think the Mayor never had lunch with the Globe or Herald Editors or Reporters?"

I do not think that the mayor ever meets reporters for dinner. He, of course, crosses paths with them at functions where dinner is served.

Are you saying that you'd be OK with Globe and Herald reporters meeting regularly with elected officials for social gatherings and that you'd expect the reporters to then be critical, skeptical, thorough, persistent and honest in their work?

Anonymous said...

Jimbo, please give it a break. The Times is not the Globe or the Herald. To think they should operate like the Globe or the Herald is naive and silly. They are a community newspaper and operate no different than most other community newspapers - we all know what it is. Why do you continue to try to convince us it should be something different?

Jim said...

I was asked a question (about dinners) and I responded. However, I don't think that there is a different code of ethics for The New York Times than there is for local papers.

Check out the code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists:

Anonymous said...

Jimbo, local means local! Ofcourse there's a difference between local and national. Local reporters should sit down with elected officials and break bread. Why is that wrong? Thats how they get there info on the happenings of the community, so please Jimbo stop it.

Jim said...

How many times do I bother stating facts only to be rebutted with nonsense? At some point I just have to move on.

Anonymous said...

Hate to burst your bubble and weigh in here Jim but I have lunch at City Hall two or three times a year with the Mayor and the staff, the editors and the owners of Boston popular newspapers. It's in his schedule and no big secret and it's usually well attended. He also holds a party for all of us press people at Christmas time.
But I'm sure if you were a writer at the Times your morals would not allow you to attend such events?

-Regular Boston Globe Contributor

Jim said...

I don't doubt that Anonymous and this may sound like back-peddling, but such events "at City Hall" and "well attended" are not the same as at a restaurant and not open to a wider group. Your example is more of a public thing, much like the president going to the National Press Club dinner every year.