Tim Horton's, Imprint, Feds, Harvey's, and Subway
Doug Sibley
cover, http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/story.php?f=2&t=3331&i=&v=f&story=3331),
we get the impression that the Feds would rather have a money loosing
business then a money making business which students would enjoy more.
Given this didn't make much sense, I wrote an email to the Feds exec and
then talked with the VPAF and the President briefly about it. It seems that
the Feds already have plans for the establishment, namely turning it into a
Subway and Harvey's, and that they are engaging in some sort of external
feasability studies.
Also, given that Tim Horton's makes a substantial sum of money for Food
Services, they will keep it even if it means Food Services needs to add more
space to the SLC. So, it seems that by putting in Subway and Harvey's
instead of Tim Horton's, it would give students more food outlets and
benefit students.
I was told by the VPAF (Dave Capper) that he told the reporter these things
in the interview. I've since emailed the reporter as I'd like to hear why
these details were omitted so I can write a letter to the editor in next
week's Imprint.
I did, however, think that the fine people who read UWS/uw.general would
like to read it so I've posted it to both (and will follow up with replies).
- Doug
Terry Vaskor
> like to read it so I've posted it to both (and will follow up with replies).
I know that I'm glad you posted it. I was planning on e-mailing the Feds
to try to figure out what the story behind the situation myself.
If those details really were provided to the reporter, it doesn't reflect
well on the Imprint that such crucial information to the story would be
left out...
Terry
Jesse Helmer
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Terry Vaskor wrote:
> If those details really were provided to the reporter, it doesn't reflect
> well on the Imprint that such crucial information to the story would be
> left out...
VPAF Dave Capper said that he recorded the interview with the Imprint
reporter, so it will be easy to verify whether the details were provided
or not. It is pretty lame to leave that information out.
--Jesse
Director, Federation of Students
Isaac Morland
Has anybody else noticed that Imprint stories frequently seem to be
trying to make a point when there is really no point to be made? I'm
not sure if they're just trying to write like investigative journalists
or what.
Of course, this is no different from most "real world" media. I
remember visiting our local Dairy Queen once and noticing a window
missing (apparently earlier broken). Then on the evening news, CKCO was
down there interviewing people, and the owner was busy explaining that
"there is no story". Of course, that was a dumb thing to say - he
should have simply explained that "somebody accidentally smashed the
glass" or whatever the truth was - but this was seriously not worth
CKCO's time to come down and put it on the evening news. At least they
didn't try to paint a picture of rising crime (n.b. crime has been
*falling* in recent years, even though you would get the opposite
impression from the news media).
Doug Sibley
this follow-up but unless there is any more comment on uw.general to reply
to, I won't post further replies on UWS, those interested can look there).
- Doug
I did not call you incompetent
By Doug Sibley on Monday, July 28 2003 at 08:16 PM
Hi,
The reason I posted the follow-up was so that others wouldn't need to
contact the Feds to hear their position. If you look at one of the earlier
comments on uw.general, someone who was intending to email them thanked me
for that.
The intent of publishing that was to tell the other side of the story,
that is, that the Feds didn't simply want to keep a money-loosing operation
but had a plan (realistic or not, I have taken Econ 102 and I'm taking 101).
Take a look at Ryan's story as an example of balance. I wanted to know
why you didn't give the Feds response; after all, it is their establishment
and they were not planning to keep it so it seemed odd not to mention that.
When I read the story, it seemed like the Feds would rather keep GZ
then a beneficial solution for both parties (i.e. have a Tim's and make
money). This was what I was led to believe from your story. You could have
added one line about the fact that the Feds exec wanted to replace GZ with
another establishement (however silly or unrealistic you might think that
desire was) and that the Feds felt that given the value of Tim Horton's that
Food Services would find another spot (again, even if you didn't think that
they would be able to -- you could even put a quote from Food Services
stating that GZ was the only realistic spot if you wanted).
I am not trying to shoot the messenger, just trying to get out the
other side of the story that did not make it into the article and find out
why you omitted the quotes.
Also, by putting "incompetent" reporter in quotes, you imply that I
said that. I did not say that nor did I think it. UWS and uw.general are for
late-breaking news and allow for reply and I felt that the other side of the
story needed to be told.
I a sorry that you felt this as an attack on you rather then a defence
of the Feds exec whose side of the story I didn't feel was adequately
represented.
- Doug
Doug Sibley
So I'm a scapegoat for Fedprint?
By Kimberly Mackhan on Sunday, July 27 2003 at 09:17 PM
Dearest Douglas,
After reading your well-written persuasive essay and various postings
on "almost every other website," I believe you of all people are kind of out
of place and inconsiderate to criticise my article for giving impressions
and representing a bias. Did you not think it necessary to ask me why I
presented the article the way I did BEFORE you posted your scandalous story
attacking my journalistic credibility? Or does not getting a view other than
that of your fellow Feds matter to you? I mean your piece is clearly based
on condemning my work but then again it only matters what you have to say or
narrate from your social chit-chat, right? Would it not have been the
"respectable" thing to confront me and ask for my feedback first? Of course
not, because writing tabloid trash on he says/she says bullshit always gets
more readership, right? Well here's what, I don't stoop to those standards!
I'm actually really surprised and disappointed that UWS would allow
something of the sort. I have reasons for doing what I do other than naively
rushing off to write letters to the editor. Really, would it have "killed"
you to confront me? Don't we go to the same school? Heck we're in the same
faculty! I might have seen you in the comfy lounge once or twice. Did you
really feel the necessity to humiliate me on UWS/uw.general. Cause that's
how I feel when you desperately show the need to complain to the editor
without even trying to look beyond your prejudice or providing me with your
comments. For chrissake someone had to send me an MSN message to alert me of
your contemptible dig. If you had even taken the time out to do ANY real
research you might have noticed that that was the last issue of Imprint for
the term (due to no fault of mine) so don't feel pressured to get the letter
going ASAP.
When the VPAF showed up on production night and asked to see the
article I informed him that I had overwhelming content with conflicting
information hence I had decided to split the article up into two parts and
run two stories. The latter story having a lot to verify and would have to
wait till the next issue. I don't believe it would be justifiable to
randomly print the dreams and aspirations of certain people while the
franchise that he or she alludes to seems to have already rejected attempts
by UW to set up an outlet on campus. Now did you know that? Oh, you didn'
t.that's why you should have asked me. The consistency and variableness of
establishing this so called plan was brought to my attention. Since I try to
keep an open mind, I decided to go back and FIND OUT MORE about these new,
last minute developments rather than put pen to paper and revealing bullshit
as some people hastily do before getting the facts.
What the hell is your problem? I feel so totally irritated by your
offensive and improper jab. Don't you have more manners than to cheaply take
shots at me on this public forum? Well shall I not return your courtesy? I
have since received no feedback from Feds on the article and I'd like to
think that the boys I voted for have more CLASS than to make niggardly,
disgruntled comments behind my back with a person like you than communicate
with me first! Rest assured I don't plan to stay hidden in my corner of the
world, I will confront them during the week. As I do plan to call up Harvey'
s, Food Services and RLC to make more progress.
On production night, I was notified that Harvey's has no interest with
respect to coming here [UW]. I don't know the truth behind this either. I
have also heard that Harvey's have outwardly stated that they have no such
intention because they make enough revenue at the Plaza as they not only
cater to UW but Waterloo residents. They would make a loss if they only
relied on UW students for revenue. I WANTED TO CONFIRM THIS. Harvey's would
also have to compete with the church colleges and their cafeterias. If I am
mistaken, the only Feds business operating at a profit is the bookstore.As
an individual, I could not understand why Harvey's would give a student
operating business (which has consistently showed many of its business to be
at a loss) a franchise over a highly reputed administration like UW. Does
that make sense to you? Hence I'm trying to validate these statements. I'm
trying to get in contact with Jocelyn Atwood from Harvey's to confirm such
information. Apparently Feds is trying to initiate their talks through her,
if you must know. Alas I am only a student and I don't expect her to reply
to me ASAP, she has other important stuff to do with middle management. It
is for this LACK OF FACTS that I tried to use my discretion with the issue.
"we get the impression that the Feds would rather have a money losing
business." Hmm.
Frankly, I didn't understand why the Feds would "want to keep a money
loosing business instead of leasing the space out at a profit for something
students would enjoy" either. For the record, those words in the quotes were
yours; with my stress from exams, the last thing I need is to see another
shocking UWS article lashing out at me for the way I write.
When I wrote the Timmy's article the ONLY opinion that I had impounded
on my mind was: Ground Zero is unsuccessful. This was a sentiment shared by
BOTH the VPAF and the Director of Food Services, as is verifiable from the
recorded interviews, which I possess, with both of them. I'm not sure if the
Feds Board of Directors is going to play this at their meeting to verify
this; if they wanted to verify what was provided it would have been polite
to ask me. Also is that not an invasion of my privacy to arbitrarily play
our conversation for more or less anyone without my permission, I'm curious
as to this.
Doug, what is the point that you are trying to make? That I should be
a scapegoat for not reporting what the Feds wanted me to say? Here's what,
as the student government, is it not their responsibility to announce how
they plan to support the views of their student population? If a member of
the RLC hadn't pointed out this Timmy's subject to Imprint we would have no
story. Ok so let's go and check the Feds website and see their 10 cents on
the story previous to the production of Imprint's Vol. 26 No. 7. Wow, look
at all the information! [Sarcasm-I feel the need to say what I imply before
you put words into my mouth or get impressions]
Oh but wait, what's that? Did you not say you had to send emails to
the pres and the VPAF to find out what's going on? Oh so you would have
probably NEVER have known (until too late) that Timmy's got rejected. As I
understand the Feds Board of Directors did not even put it to vote! Did it
ever occur to you that they may not have even seen the proposal? These were
among some of the topics I would have covered in my second article but you
make me feel the need to justify myself to you and reveal it now. Why was
none of this included in YOUR article?
Why? Because your article does not care about relevant facts/surveys
or issues pertinent to the student body? It seems only destructive and aims
at poor, short me who tried to shed some light on an issue that even
students were not even aware of! Before I wrote the article did you know
that if this bakery does not get going, Timmy's would kiss UW goodbye? I
wonder how much of the student population knew that?
Shall we stick to the facts:
Is Ground Zero making a loss? Yippers.
[I have been enlightened that the salary of the manager lies somewhere
between $22 000-$30 000 (I'm not sure what it is that's why I did not put it
to print!). Therefore that loss is = $16 994 + a huge number. It's kind of
really odd to omit that eh? Cause it made me wonder what else was being
omitted in that so called loss figure. But I'm guessing such facts go
unnoticed to you and are of inconsequential value to your letter to the
editor.]
Did Feds reject (ok hold up, this is the part where I believe I made
an error, I have been since informed that it wasn't Feds but the exec-I need
to double check this though) the Timmy's proposal? Right again. [I'm not
200% confident but when I returned to UW this weekend I tried to do more
research, cause that's what "the reporter" is supposed to do. I now
understand Food Service approached Feds since Fall 2002. I don't know who
rejected who but the deal went sour. I saw a post saying that Food Services
walked away from the deal but then again the person did not use a dependable
identity so the quality of his post is debatable. Feds never informed me of
this. Considering that I was told Food Services were willing to remit it's
operating surplus (words of one Mr. Murdoch), I wonder what exactly Feds
would do that would make Food Services walk away? From what I understand,
Food Services went back to Feds on June 9 with a proposal and this is what I
am reporting on. This was a proposal that the VPAF refused to let me see
claiming it was confidential. Hmm, I wonder why Food Services willingly
provided me with one.Atleast I have the guts to report the truth, although
you really make me feel I should have never even brought this to the
attention of students]
"Given this didn't make much sense."
Especially since everything the Feds does makes sense? Or because I'm
an "incompetent," first year mathie who can't write? I don't know why Feds
do what they do; I'm not even into student politics.no really, that's just
cute! Kudos to you on YOUR writing. Right now I'm being warned about posting
this reply to you but here's what, just because you are the "unofficial
spokesperson" for Feds that does not mean that I will allow myself to be put
down or be intimidated by you! But come on, there's only so much that I can
tolerate..
If I have committed a crime then fine, I will apologize. I don't point
fingers and I don't try to change the focus of a story so as to evade people
of the fact that Tim Horton' s needs a bakery to open up. At least I'm not
sleazy enough to go around trying to make an ass of students who in between
her or his co-op term and night class try to help out with the student
newspaper. By the way, thanks a lot!
Imprint is not a showcase for the "wants" of Feds nor am I a medium
for broadcasting for them (you could keep that job). Yes, I believe in fair
reporting. It is for that reason I got interviews from both Feds and Food
Services as well as RLC which is a "linking arm" to both. Yes, I believe
that the student newspaper needs to keep a healthy relationship with the
representatives the STUDENTS CHOOSE for their Federation. It is for this
reason I encourage the reporters to get COMMENTS from Feds exec. Cover:
Capper, pg 3: Fedy and Liam, heck on page four there was an article on their
"eleventh-hour" strategic plans. If I was so anti-Feds as you portray me to
be then I would have been like: screw them and their strategic plans, it's
their own business and priority to put up their plans on their website and
make the students aware of stuff, after all they get paid for it. Heck I
could have gotten people to easily rewrite press releases! But no, I didn't.
I kept an open mind and tried to facilitate the Feds into the news.
If you look at the Imprint masthead it says Imprint is an independent
newspaper and does not guarantee to publish articles.Material may not be
published, at the discretion of Imprint,...contravention..ethics..standards.
If I have disgraced Imprint then I will write an apology to them. I know
Christine does her best and I know I sure as hell try my best. While I admit
that I'm no Lois Lane nor am I an aspiring Globe and Mail superstar, I do
try really hard to make Imprint less "News-lacking" and less of a "waste of
paper." I'm even trying to report more than just the "things we can see from
the bottom of the SLC." What are you trying to do? Break my spirit? How
about some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback! Or are you not mature enough to do so?
Strange, I though I was the frosh here.
It's horrible though that one should have to dread the people who are
supposed to represent you, especially when you contradict their ideas. I was
aware of Feds "wanting" to open a Harvey's. I'm also aware of Feds "wanting"
to re-open the Bomber, but is that happening? Do you see why I chose to
split it up into two articles? I was trying to get more info from Harvey's,
and if this Harvey's really could happen I was trying to see what would
happen to Timmy's. What exactly is this "external feasability studies?" This
jargon is new to me; perhaps you would care to elaborate (well if not for
me, then at least for the fine uws/uw.general readers)!
"Also, given that Tim Horton's makes a substantial sum of money for
Food Services, they will keep it even if it means Food Services needs to add
more space to the SLC."
WHAT? ARE YOU FOR REAL!! So is this the type of good journalism I
should learn from or the confined views of an individual? Here's what, spare
me the headache and go out and do make some enquiries! Cause that's what I
was busy doing! I did not wish to squish it all up into one long, messy,
UNEDUCATED 2000 plus word article. I was also trying to learn from my
mistakes and not saturate the News section with the Tim's story as was done
with the Finkelstein lecture. At least I aim for improvement, what are you
aiming for? Degradation?
What the hell, do you think Food Services can wave a magic wand and
suddenly the admin will approve a Timmy's in some other place in the SLC. Ok
I'm not pro-Food Services or anti-Feds but you really are frustrating me
with your ignorance. Did Food Services confirm this information to you? NO?
Did you talk to them? NO? For crying out loud brethren, are you thinking
rationally? SO now you're like Miss Cleo, you predict Food Services will add
space to the SLC! Do you know how much millions it will cost to the UW admin
to shell out for the operation of a new Timmy's, especially if they have to
like chop down trees and fix a spot? Well I chose not to be ignorant and I
was going to report in my next article that hefty figure. My turn to be a
psychic and predict whose student fees will rise to pay for the cost of this
Timmy's.
But here's what perhaps you should have listened to what the person
responsible for the franchise has to say! Where are they gonna put it? In
ML.nope! In DC? Are you kidding me! Construction for G-Zero alone took
almost two years! Are you aware of the consequences of building a Timmy's in
DC? Think about it, they'd have to close up the café and block off the beach
area enclosed by MC etc. so as to prevent hazards. Do you know how much
money they would lose? Do you think certain Econ101 profs would allow people
to drill away in DC while they teach? With this Harvey's thing, they are
definitely considering relocating but all this requires approval from the UW
board and it really doesn't look good. All this would have been corroborated
in my next article. But forgive me because I'm "incompetent."
"So, it seems that by putting in Subway and Harvey's instead of Tim
Horton's, it would give students more food outlets and benefit students."
Here's what when the VPAF mentioned the words "plans.to implement
Subway/Harvey's" I was the first to jump and say wow, that'd offer us more
diversity, great point! But as a business major I began to really think
about the benefits. Did you ask the Feds to see the projected revenue from
this business before you made an unfounded comment as above? Did you SEE the
expected returns from a 24-hr Timmy's? Did you even talk to either a
business or econ prof about what such a venture would mean? Do the words
"Harvey's vs Timmy's.small marginal utility.high opportunity cost...lack of
economic PROFIT.sunk cost" mean anything to you?
"I've since emailed the reporter as I'd like to hear why these details
were omitted so I can write a letter to the editor in next week's Imprint."
I'd appreciate it if you took time out and listened to what I had to
say instead of hastily running to write another UWS/uw.general article. I
don't know why you would feel as bold as to outwardly try to prove that I
was aware of "the want of Harvey's." If you had only taken the same time you
used to rush off to the offices opposite the underperforming G-Zero and
talked to me, I would have cleared out any misconceptions for you. I don't
understand why you would so immaturely jump to conclusions without asking me
NADA. Like I said, it is a two-part story.
The original article that I was supposed to write about was based on
the criteria that Tim Horton's needs a spot for its 24-hr bakery and they
thought GZ seemed reasonable. This story was not presented to me by Food
Services; in fact it was given to me through a volunteer with the Residence
Life Committee.
Now Harvey's was big news and I had no evidence of it, only the word
of a VPAF so I could not hastily just post an article without even getting
the facts or even another judgment other than that of a Feds employee or the
Fed prez, that'd be kind of naïve eh? I have higher standards than writing
articles based on he says/she says bullshit. I mean come on; you know how
many fine students read the paper (yourself being one?). It is of my
personal belief that I needed to make more inquiries into that Harvey's
claim. Hence I concluded that I would run the Harvey's story in the next
issue.
If you wish to see more just check next term's Imprint on August 29th.
Let's hope your discretion is better than mine since I don't really know
what fine people like to read. ;)
The credibility of this Harvey's/Subway venture became very
questionable and was very hard to believe because of a comment that the fast
food outlet would try be open for extended hours on Wednesday and Saturday
for Bomber nights. I sat there thinking but isn't the Bomber closed! Does
that mean the reality of this fast food outlet opening would be as good as
the reality of the re-opening of the Bomber? As a fellow writer(?), I hope
you understand my position to feel the need to better research the situation
rather than hastily print that Feds would replace G-Zero with Harvey's and
Subway. That really would be stupid and unprofessional! Even if they were
trying to do so is the idea wise considering there was already a Harvey's
and Subway right in the plaza, plus there's a Mr. Sub in DC. Again this
would have been covered in my second article.
Is your analysis reasonable? I honestly don't fell persuaded to think
so. Personally, (note this is just my personal preference) I think things
that Harvey's offer could more than be gotten through any Food Services
joint. Do you think student's want burger and fries from 9-5 during Mon-Fri
or 24/7 coffee? Perhaps you should check the RLC survey and see what
students want.
As you have allowed me the opportunity to reply to you before you
write your letter to the editor (unfortunately I can't say that much for
your UWS/uw.general article as it quite naively portrays me to be an ass), I
will ask you to keep in mind that I am yet to finish my investigation on the
issue.
However I am influenced to believe that you don't really care about
Tim Horton's or the feasibility of this Harvey's plan since your article
only dwelled on my credibility.
I don't waste time running around to read quibbles or blogs. If you
have something to say to me, I have an email address. I welcome comments,
questions and feedback from anyone who has misconeptions or just wants to
drop a line.
If you're so much better than me why did you not get some FACTS. I
believe you owe me an apology as I did put a lot of effort, research and
hard work into this story! Then again judging from your post you probably
aren't half the man to say such a thing or even mean it.
Good luck with your endeavours, editorial letters and exams.
Sincerely,
The "incompetent" reporter who spoke to the VPAF
Kimberly Mackhan
Ray Butterworth
Isaac Morland <ijmo...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
...
>Has anybody else noticed that Imprint stories frequently seem to be
>trying to make a point when there is really no point to be made? I'm
>not sure if they're just trying to write like investigative journalists
>or what.
It's not only the Imprint; that seems to be the trend everywhere.
I was in Vancouver last week, and the newspaper there carried a
story about a Kitchener student that was skipping school so much
that a judge sent her to jail. Reading the same thing in the
Kitchener paper this week presented a completely different story.
Both had correct facts, but the different angle and the omitted
details created quite different pictures.
To overly simplify and generalize: all newspapers are the same;
the National Enquirer is more honest about it.