Sentinel has no online coverage of Friday's March for Immigrant Rights in Santa Cruz

Not to defend the Sentinel but.. from what I hear they did have print coverage on Saturday.

The Sentinel had a front page article on Saturday.

Thanks for pointing that out. It should have been mentioned in the post.

The point is not that there was zero coverage total, but that there is no online coverage. That they chose not to post their article online. Not only do they publish an article with a low estimate of the turnout and poor representation of peoples' outrage to HR 4437, they fail to archive the article online.

I just checked the archives and it looks like they put the article up. Is this a result of this person's post? Who knows.

Anyways.. the article claims that "About 200 people rallied outside the County Government Center on Friday night," numbers that photos posted on SC-IMC easily show are far-low if you consider the sequence of events on Friday night.

Why doesn't this surprise me? The Scent-anal seems to really go out of its way to send INCOMPETENT reporters in an attempt to cover its intended and intentional bias of support for this system run amok and against people of color in struggle. The article they actually printed was horrible. It was inacurate, incomplete and left me, an acutal participant in the event wondering what happened. My idea of the event would be totally different if my only source of information was this article. My guess is that they're thinking if they send incompetent reporters they can then blame the rank and file for the poor coverage and reporting of significant issues and events for people of color. This policy of imcompetence barely disguises the intentional bias against people of color struggling for justice. They printed a comentary a couple Sundays ago by Liana HoltzFarman (or whatever her name is) basically saying "poor colored people better know their role and follow whitey". This paper is crap and only (again) shows its intentional bias by excluding this significant news event from its website.

Good work Sentinel sucks! Gracias!

Apologies to any and all (if they exist) employees of the Scent-anal who're frustrated with their employers incompetence and bias.

Well, that sure is interesting.

At first, the Santa Cruz Sentinel chose not to archive their article about the March 17th, 2006, Rally and March for Immigrant Rights and Againt HR 4437.

The Sentinel article (Protest targets immigration bill prompts protest) was not online on March 18th, 2006. It was not online March 19th, 2006. [Hey Sentinel, your story title makes no sense!]

Then, this article (Sentinel has no online coverage of Friday's March for Immigrant Rights in Santa Cruz) was published on March 20th, 2006 at 9:35 PM.

By March 20th, 2006 at 10:32 PM, someone at the Sentinel decided to post their article on their website. This decision was made in less than one hour after an article appeared on Santa Cruz IMC critiquing their original decision.

Or, maybe it is just a coincidence?

The Wall Street Journal - Santa Cruz Sentinel edition managed to print skewed, hate bating disinformation about last week's Norman Finkelstein event for a total of 13!#@! days. They completely misrepresented the man's positions on issues and then continued to try and contrive controversy by taking polls of readers asking them if he should be allowed to speak!!! Did they bother to advertise the immigrants rights march... or did they cover the antiwar march? Of course not. They rarely do.

This is the same damn paper that didn't print a single letter of over four hundred it received in opposition to the Alito confirmation -- until the day before the vote when they printed ONE. They also held all the letters they received in opposition to the recent state killings of death row inmates. And the list goes on and on...

The best thing you can do is EXPOSE them -- they ARE NOT locally owned, but are owned by the very same owner of the Wall Street Journal. The set of local newspapers they own through this company are NOT in your typical red state areas. They are all in progressive voting areas!! Why do you think that is? This IS a conspiracy (not just a theory) and they are out to control progressive communities through their ownership of local newspapers. Since these communities won't buy their piece-of-shit CAPITALISM-worshipping rag, the Wall Street Journal forcibly tries to ram their vitriol up our asses in the form of our only daily local paper. There is a way out: don't buy it, don't pay attention to it and work like hell for more independent forms of media.

Check it out: http://www.ottaway.com/newspapers.html

A word to the few "decent" journalists at the Wall Street Journal, Sentinel edition -- resistance can be fun. You have more power than you know. I hope you help yourself to the longest lunchbreaks, the best parking spot, all the paperclips your pockets can hold and whatever your creative mind comes up with. After all, you gotta look out for yourself and doing that really is what the Wall Street Journal is all about! Besides, if you are a decent journalist who is really doing her job, you're going to be fired soon anyway. Or if you're not doing your job, you're going to be commiting slow suicide with all the substances you consume to avoid having to face yourself... so isn't resistance a better alternative?

I've been thinking for a while that it'd be great of SC-IMC had some sort of 'SentinelWatch' or 'CorporatePressWatch' where local folks could put up their responses to articles in the corporate press as a way to keep 'em in check...

The last stupidity from Santa Cruz Sentinel:
Sanctify the Minutemen!
Yes, they are saints, check it out:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/April/30/local/stories/01local.htm

Do you want to meet the most bigot and racists guys in Santa Cruz?
Don't miss the Santa Cruz Sentinel forum these days, you'll find the worst
messages of xenophobia and hateful stereotypes to incite bigotry and violence
against latinos
http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi