Connect with us

Opinion

Op-ed rebuttal: Reassigning blame for struggling Mapfre, disgruntled fans

Mark Elliott

Published

on

Yesterday 614now writer Steve Croyle expressed his opinion on the current Crew situation here. You know what they say, opinions are just like….well, Google it.

Anyway, here’s mine.

Instead of an overriding critique of Mr. Croyle’s Op-ed (you readers did a good job of that yourselves), I want to address two specific things: The stadium and the timing.    

While much of what Mr. Croyle says about Mapfre is true, blaming it all on “city leaders” is the typical “it’s the government’s fault” excuse. Study after study show publicly funded stadiums never pay off. And local community leaders have come forward with land and locations and private funding—all of which Crew ownership has dismissed or ignored.

Should local leaders have gotten involved earlier? Maybe. 

But Precourt Sports Ventures, the owner of the stadium, has done jack-squat on fixing or updating since they bought the team. And if they want to fix the parking problem, call me—I’ve redesigned the entire lot on the back of a napkin more than once. 

I will admit, PSV has done a great job of putting a competitive team on the field—only one goal away from playing for the MLS Cup last year.

So just as the playoffs start, you make the announcement that you’re thinking of moving? That was just the start of an all out war on Crew fans, including blaming them for problems of getting Austin’s attention!

Sports marketing classes at OSU will use this case study as a demonstration of what NOT to do for years to come.

Is the team moving? I hope not, but I’m resigned to it. I’m going to enjoy this season as much as I can. But I and many others hold Crew ownership responsible for much of this situation, and Mr. Croyle’s column did little to change our minds.

Columbus Native (Lincoln Village) I've spent my entire career in radio with stations across the South and Midwest. But I'm tired of moving around the country (my last employer wanted me in Albuquerque!) So I returned to CBus to be closer to friends and family and am freelancing now, including writing for (and about) 614. Reds, Bengals, Crew fan, and fan of whoever is playing the Cardinals and the Steelers.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Publisher: We can do better, free speech isn’t easy

Wayne T. Lewis, Publisher

Published

on

When we started (614) Magazine over a decade ago our focus was on telling stories that helped people enjoy and experience our growing city. It was a simple mission - to focus on all the positive additions that make life more enjoyable here. 

Along the way we’ve written about culture too. From documenting the rise of the local Somali population to the establishment of a proud LGBTQ community and most recently, documenting the contributions made by our immigrant neighbors. The magazine was awarded Best Monthly Magazine by the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists as a result of some of that coverage. It was our 3rd time receiving that honor.

That mission has not changed. (614) is focused on the positive and the good things that our community brings to the table.

In the past few years we’ve added a digital component (614now.com) that has added news-style coverage of events we deem “newsworthy” or interesting to our audience. Since we live in very interesting times to say the least, some of this coverage attracts slings and arrows from time to time. From all sides. Our misuse of “their” and “they’re” notwithstanding.

It’s part of the business and we accept that we won’t be perfect nor do we expect our entire audience - hundreds of thousands of you - to laud our every headline.

What we do and will continue to commit to is the principle that free speech and the free press are precious things. We won’t deny your ability to comment in our stories (as long as you keep it civil) as so many other media does, nor will we refuse to publish speech, commentary or interviews that some may find offensive. If the subject matter is relevant to Columbus or events transpiring here, we’ll provide a platform. That said, we’re fairly new to the “news” game and we acknowledge that we could do certain things better. 

This is never more evident than with the current uproar by some over our coverage of the “Proud Boys” episode. For some, including other members of local media, to imply that we are somehow “Nazi sympathizers” because we chose to publish the unedited words of people involved in the march is unfair to the honest, thoughtful people working here. That said, we could have done a few things better... 

Our quick-to-publish style that may suit a story about a new donut shop opening doesn’t serve us as well with serious or controversial topics. We plan to slow down and establish more editorial oversight by and between our content team. We could have added more critical context to the story and worked harder to get an additional point of view. We hear the critics and frankly, appreciate the fact that you care (well, most of you) to see us get it right.

I can assure you our agenda is not about clicks (we removed ads from this story after it became so controversial) nor taking sides in any political or cultural debate - no matter how righteous an opinion may be. It’s about respecting our audience and your ability to make up your own minds after reading the words and deeds of antagonist and protagonist alike. 

We think you’re all smart and capable enough.

Justice Louis Brandeis observed, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” While a commentary on government corruption at the time, it held that evil lurks and grows in the darkness and that a free society depends on the open-airing of all views, no matter how distasteful. This axiom was also long held as an operating principle within journalism. I still believe this to be true and the right thing to do. 

We choose to maintain, even cherish, our freedom to publish all relevant sides to the many debates that are sure to follow. You are likewise free to leave your opinion below these stories. We also welcome longer-form opinions, even ones critical of us, at [email protected]

We only ask that you keep it civil and remember that the people creating our content are doing their best to be fair and open-minded. Oh, and none of us are Nazi sympathizers so there’s that too.

Wayne T. Lewis
Publisher

Continue Reading

Govt & Politics

Op-Ed: We won battle with Heartbeat Bill block, war continues

Caitlin Horwatt

Published

on

Ohio’s controversial “Heartbeat Bill” has been ​blocked by a federal court​, just days before it was slated to go into enforcement on July 11. The ruling is a temporary win for pro-reproductive rights activists and Planned Parenthood, ensuring that abortion clinics in the state of Ohio can stay open. But, the war over a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy is only ramping up.

The law would have banned abortions in the state of Ohio after six weeks, the earliest time in a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat may be detected and well before many women know they are pregnant. There were to be no exceptions for rape or incest, although there would be exceptions when the life of the mother was in danger. The law would have classified violations as fifth-degree felonies, carrying up to one year in jail time and up to $2,500 in fines as a sentence.

The ​halt was ordered ​by Judge Michael Barrett of the Southern District of Ohio U.S. District Court. Barrett pointed out that the bill placed an “undue burden” on a woman seeking to terminate a pre-viability pregnancy. The law was on its face unconstitutional, a blatant attempt to overturn the federal government’s long standing decision to give women the right to the decisions regarding their bodies. Conservatives have tried to limit bodily autonomy well before women had the right to abortions; however, they fail to attack problems like infant poverty and child hunger with the same veracity.

The bill was part of a larger strategy that’s occurred nationwide at the hands of Republican lawmakers. The right to an abortion will stand nationally as long as Supreme Court rulings, including ​Roe v. Wade,​ remain in effect. By hammering out heartbeat bills nationwide, conservatives increase their chances of getting a ruling appealed up to the Supreme Court and from there the conservative-leaning court overturning ​Roe​.

Abortions are not only justified in the case of rape or incest, which has been a clickbait-inducing theme around this controversy. Abortion is a part of reproductive healthcare, a procedure nearly one in four women​ have before the age of 45. If lawmakers are so concerned about decreasing abortion rates, presumably because of a concern for the lives of the fetuses, they should fund comprehensize sex education ​and support for impoverished children already in this country.

The right to an abortion goes further than an outright ban. Strict regulations are a backdoor way to limit abortions, claiming to regulate the abortion providers for safety purposes. The state of Missouri​ famously has just one embattled abortion clinic ​still open and providing procedures, with the fight to keep the clinic licensed and running regularly boiling down to the wire in the past several months.

It is easy to move on from this debate when a new shocking headline runs about the state of politics or the crisis at the border. Wins like this, though important, cannot be accepted as permanent. As long as conservative lawmakers are proposing bills and regulations that limit abortion care, there is a battle to be fought, because we won’t go back.

Continue Reading

Govt & Politics

OP-ED: Heartbeat Bill will likely affect 11yo Ohio rape victim

Caitlin Horwatt

Published

on

The passage of Ohio’s recent “heartbeat bill,” signed by Governor DeWine, marks a massive and distressing win in the conservative quest to outright ban abortion. All parties supporting the bill—from DeWine to legislators and lobbyists—are well aware that the action will be blocked by courts as they uphold Roe v. Wade, which protects the right to abortion until 24 weeks gestation. We should be frightened as we explore whether their big picture goal is to get Roe v. Wade overturned by the decidedly conservative Court.

By banning abortion after a heartbeat is detected, the law prohibits abortion as early as eight weeks, well before many women know they are pregnant. Add in the already mandatory twenty-four hour waiting period between first appointment and procedure, and the likelihood of legal abortion for even a pregnancy detected early seems slim. The law is an blatant attempt to ban women’s right to choose.

The Guttmacher Institute found that ​1 in 4 women​ has had an abortion before age 45. The Pew Research Center found that ​58% of Americans support legal abortion ​in all or most cases, with polarizing views against abortion coming mostly from Republican and religious Americans. These statistics fail to depict, though, how traumatic the impact can be for women forced to carry a child to term when she does not have the means or support to do so. The law is meant to protect the fetus at a term that is far earlier than the 22 to 24 weeks at which it is viable, all at the cost of the mother.

The bill notably does not give exceptions for cases of rape and incest, only allowing exceptions for medical necessity to save the mother’s life. This means an ​11 year-old rape victim from Massillon​ will likely have to carry her rapist’s baby to term.

Heartbeat bills do not ban abortion; they ban legal abortion. I think of a sign I saw during the 2017 Women’s March: a metal coat hanger with the words “WE WON’T GO BACK” scrawled below. The passage of this recent law achingly raises questions of whether or not we will go back.

Women who now find themselves pregnant could have their lives forever changed. Even if they choose to surrender the baby after birth, the cost of a pregnancy is astronomical and healthcare is far from a certainty in this country. If the pregnancy was caused by rape, the potential for trauma only escalates. Women will have few places to turn, with the most vulnerable unable to seek safe healthcare and the potential high for maternal deaths as part of botched abortions.

The ACLU and other organizations are already moving to challenge the ban in court. I can’t shake the looming feeling that these challenges will only play into the hands of those anti-abortion supporters, and that we may be entering the most important fight of our generation in this fight for a woman’s right to choose.

Continue Reading

No mo’ FOMO

Missing out sucks. That's why our daily email is so important. You'll be up-to-date on the latest happenings and things to do in Cbus + be the first to snag our daily giveaways

Shop Now!

The Magazines

X