Forest Park Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > Soapbox
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Review Bias
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Review Bias

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Review Bias
    Posted: 16/December/2013 at 2:16am
Recently a story appeared in the Forest Park Review; Forest Park Police Reports – Nov 18-24 about Chalk, a liquor establishment, closing late. The article noted that on Nov 21 at 2:30 AM (30 minutes after the Village’s required closing time) 20 people were still on the premises. The Review went on to describe that the person in charge (Matt Mathey) used abusive language with police and was issued a citation for closing late. Several local business owners were upset with Mathey’s behavior, so we approached him for an explanation. He said that while he was truly sorry for his behavior towards the officers, he disputes the time that the incident occurred.  According to Mathey the citation he received was issued at 2:01, one minute later than required closing time, not 30.  I met with Mathey and sure enough the ticket said 2:01. He told me that he had called the Review and made the editor aware of the error but that no correction had been made. Recently I brought to the editor’s attention that several business owners were upset by the error and at that point she issued a correction. Now I have one big problem with the editor’s correction; she changed the time that the ticket was given but added; “As police cleared the bar for the next half hour.” Mathey claims the bar cleared in a matter of minutes after he realized his mistake. 

I am not in any way trying to justify Mr. Mathey’s horrible behavior.  The police should be treated with the utmost respect at all times.  Furthermore, closing time is closing time, period. My point simply is this; there is an infinite difference between someone losing track of the time and making an honest mistake, and somebody operating a full 30 minutes late. I am forced to wonder whether the editor embellished the police report to make the incident seem worse than it was. Think, how big of a story is it “Chalk closes one minute late”?  It seems like these kinds of errors occur often in The Review when reporting incidents in liquor establishments. It was incredibly wrong for the editor not to correct this error when Mathey called her. We also have to question whether the aforementioned “30 minute clearing out” is in the police report or more embellishment from an editor not willing to back off from her first “mistake.” If the latter turns out to be true it is my opinion that the editor should resign. We will find out who’s telling the truth here. More incidents of perceived bias and other errors will be posted.

Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16/December/2013 at 9:43am
Resign? C'mon now, Iceman. She made a mistake, as you rightly pointed out.
I understand your annoyance at the discrepancies regarding times. But, having written stories like this myself, I can be pretty sure that the reason it made it into the paper at all was the owner's belligerence toward the cops. No abusive language, no story on the 2:01 a.m. closing. 

Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/December/2013 at 12:59am
   I have now obtained a copy of the police report concerning the after hours incident at Chalk. The report clearly was timed at 2:01 and not 2:30 as originally published, or 2:04 as the correction states. Nowhere in this report does it state that it took police a half hour to clear the bar, as also stated in the Review's correction.
    I'm not writing this to defend anyone involved in this incident but rather to show that this report and it's correction serve as one example of the biased, lazy or downright untruthful reporting by this editor and newspaper. The sad fact is that this town is split into two camps and it seems that often the truth is sacrificed. If it were only this one article it could be overlooked, but it isn't. Since I began talking about this, I have been approached by over 20 business people and or residents, all telling me similar stories. I realize the importance of investigative reporting and the need to report the news but the Forest Park Review has become a rogue newspaper with it's own biased agenda. It's time for a change, this newspaper has lost the confidence of too many of its readers.


Edited by Iceman - 17/December/2013 at 1:02am
Back to Top
watcher View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Active here since 2001

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/December/2013 at 7:52am
You've raised the biased agenda strawman, the elimination strawman and the aggregation strawman along with relativism, truth, justice and the Americun way?

At 2:01am Chalk violated its license. That IS the time of the infraction. Just a guess, but if the 20 people had been in the process of leaving the establishment at 2:01 or 2:04, nothing would have happened. They weren't.

The paper said that Mr. Mathey is the owner of Chalk, your initial post seemed to indicate he was merely the "Person in charge". Is this accurate? Does this error (quibble) negate the entirety of your posts?
You edited your post 3 minutes after you first posted but you failed to correct a few errors in spelling and punctuation. Do these mistakes diminish the case you're trying to make?

In addition to the copy of the police report, did you also obtain copies/transcripts of the PD's weekly report that was given to the Review, Mathey's clarification call to the editor or talk to the patrolling officers who issued the citation to Chalk? Did you convene an objective panel to review the evidence before issuing your indictment of the Review?

Can we expect a similar objection/defense of the Oak Leaf/Pines situation based on quibbles in the various reports/articles?

Chalk/Mathey screwed up. Whether an honest mistake or arrogant disregard for authority, the matter does not rise to anything close to proving the Review as a "rogue newspaper" nor does it warrant a call for resignations.





"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/December/2013 at 1:51pm
Nice job of dissecting this nonsense, watcher. "Rogue newspaper"? Bunk. A mistake? Looks like it. But allegations of ill intent are just goofy. 

As for "It's time for a change, this newspaper has lost the confidence of too many of its readers." What change or changes exactly do you call for Iceman?

Better pay and benefits for overworked editors and journalists? Shorter hours? More help? More advertising revenue? A turn around in the precipitous decline in both subscriber base and readership? 

Calling for a person's job and suggesting sweeping change is needed because of inaccuracies in a news account is simply ridiculous.

Your statement "The sad fact is that this town is split into two camps and it seems that often the truth is sacrificed" would appear to mix the cheap political shenanigans and thin-skinned governance tactics of the current political majority with the quality of newspaper coverage. 

That too is plain nonsense. 

The next time I listen to a tense, worried radio dispatch from FPPD asking for assistance from other municipalities for a brawl involving "50 to 100 people" at one of Forest Park's bars, should I find a way to put it on line and argue "it's time for a change"? 

Because that shit happens from time to time, and no one is calling for any bar manager's job.
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
Observerofdoom View Drop Down
Tourist
Tourist


Joined: 11/October/2013
Location: NA
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Observerofdoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/December/2013 at 5:14pm
@ watcher...pretentious as usual.  @Wild Bill D, you started out ok with this thread, then Creepy wound you up...what you two knuckle heads need is to read what the person wrote, digest it, think about it and then react.  When someone makes a good point, fricking acknowledge it, stop with the incessant bias.  Iceman made some valid points, the Review has been somewhat inconsistent, a little sub-par as of late.  The buck stops with the Editor period.. should she lose her job over this?.. absolutely not! She does a fine job and from what I hear is a wonderful person, she just needs to tighten it up a bit.  



Edited by watcher - 17/December/2013 at 6:15pm
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/December/2013 at 5:31pm
Piss off, Obs, you moron. And learn how to read.

I did acknowledge his point. I criticized his conclusions, including firing people. 
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19/December/2013 at 1:15pm

I wish to discuss a few of Watcher’s comments. First she states “The paper said that Mr. Mathey is the owner of Chalk, your initial post seemed to indicate he was merely the “Person in charge” is this accurate? Does this error (quibble) negate the entirety of your posts?”

                First, this is not an error. Mathey is not the owner of Chalk, it is owned by a corporation or partnership. I am not in error, the editor is. Tickets like this are normally issued to the person in charge, offending server or manager. If Portillo’s is caught serving minors, they don’t fly the ticket down to Dick Portillo. One of the liquor establishments caught in the recent sting had an owner on premise but the ticket was issued to the server. Every single bar owner I know believes the editor makes this mistake on purpose, and that the reason this mistake is made is to highlight that some people involved in the liquor industry don’t live in town.   I cannot find any other instances where an offending business person has his town of origin revealed.  Why doesn’t the editor extend this treatment to Oak Park liquor establishments?  It seems this is just reserved for some Forest park businesses, and we believe it reflects a bias. We want it stopped.

                Second, Watcher asks “in addition to the police report did you also obtain copies/transcripts of the PD’s weekly report that was given to the Review?”  We believe we have all the information the Review has and maybe more. My initial analysis is still that the initial article’s time was incorrect, the time in the correction was incorrect and the corrected statement “as police cleared the bar out for the next half hour” seems to be a complete fabrication. Now if you or the editor has information to the contrary, please do share.

                Finally the purpose here is not to defend any liquor establishment, rather to defend the ideal that the news needs to be reported correctly and objectively.

Back to Top
jerry View Drop Down
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 324
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19/December/2013 at 6:09pm
Ice, may I point out that the Review is a Forest Park paper not an Oak Park paper. This could be why she does not write about Oak Park liquor establishments, schools, business or politics.
Back to Top
watcher View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Active here since 2001

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19/December/2013 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by Iceman Iceman wrote:



I wish to discuss a few of Watcher’s comments. First she states “The paper said that Mr. Mathey is the owner of Chalk, your initial post seemed to indicate he was merely the “Person in charge” is this accurate? Does this error (quibble) negate the entirety of your posts?”

               First, this is not an error. Mathey is not the owner of Chalk, it is owned by a corporation or partnership. I am not in error, the editor is. Tickets like this are normally issued to the person in charge, offending server or manager. If Portillo’s is caught serving minors, they don’t fly the ticket down to Dick Portillo. One of the liquor establishments caught in the recent sting had an owner on premise but the ticket was issued to the server. Every single bar owner I know believes the editor makes this mistake on purpose, and that the reason this mistake is made is to highlight that some people involved in the liquor industry don’t live in town.   I cannot find any other instances where an offending business person has his town of origin revealed. Why doesn’t the editor extend this treatment to Oak Park liquor establishments? It seems this is just reserved for some Forest park businesses, and we believe it reflects a bias. We want it stopped.

               Second, Watcher asks “in addition to the police report did you also obtain copies/transcripts of the PD’s weekly report that was given to the Review?” We believe we have all the information the Review has and maybe more. My initial analysis is still that the initial article’s time was incorrect, the time in the correction was incorrect and the corrected statement “as police cleared the bar out for the next half hour” seems to be a complete fabrication. Now if you or the editor has information to the contrary, please do share.

               Finally the purpose here is not to defend any liquor establishment, rather to defend the ideal that the news needs to be reported correctly and objectively.


Mathey owner
Mathey - a former beer salesman - purchased Murphy's in December 2003 and was intent on making live music a regular occurrence.

"It was a big investment and I knew I eventually wanted to get music in there," Mathey said. "With the economy today, you have to give people a reason to come in other than just to have a drink."


Mathey owner
"Craft beers and live music," is what owner Matt Mathey said when asked about the rebranding.

Mathey owner
Murphy's owner Matt Mathey is donating prizes for the first food drive held at the bar since Mathey and his wife became owners in 2003.

<a href="" rel="nofollow">
Bar owners, such as Murphy's Pub's Matt Mathey, said the opposite effect is taking place.[/URL]


Double standard? Bragging about ownership for free publicity or to front a proposal, but using incorporated status as a smokescreen for personal hubris?

Who's not being objective correctly? After nine Review articles in which Mathey is identified as the owner, now he's just some guy behind the bar?

You're free to think and believe whatever you want. You're free to express those beliefs anywhere you choose. Others are free to see things differently. IMO, the Review strives for a balance between your beliefs and their mission to provide its readers with information. We are lucky to have a local paper. I happen to think it provides something this village needs. That some in the business community and among our electeds spend enormous effort trying to marginalize it is a much bigger concern to me.

Regardless of your initial and subsequent analyses, at 2:01am on the date of the infraction, Chalk was in violation of its liquor license.
Clerical errors don't change that threshold.

Shit happens.



Edited by piehead to correct hyperlink.

Edited by piehead - 20/December/2013 at 10:58am
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2013 at 10:44am
"Don't Mess With Watcher." :)
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
piehead View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote piehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2013 at 10:56am
But perhaps Mathey isn't an owner just like Hosty isn't an owner or is????
Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 2:21pm

Mr. Dwyer, I would like to discuss some of your comments about what I wrote. First I would like to tell you how enlightening your information about Chris Welch was. It is a shame that what you are writing is not consistently reaching a larger audience it deserves.

            You take issue with my asking for the editor’s resignation over a “mistake.” It isn’t one mistake. Including the Review’s corrections, it is four.  Furthermore, it’s a pattern of mistakes or biased reporting that make me ask for change.  For instance in the crime reports for Dec. 1-8, two out of 3 “crime stories” concern bars. The lead story concerns a 14 dollar theft at Shortstop. This great heist resulted in a municipal ticket being issued. Look at the packet of information the editor has and tell me that somehow this is the most important crime committed in the village. Please look and tell us what you think. I see nothing but more biased bar bashing from our editor.

            Also, the editor should take note that it is not acceptable to blindly regurgitate what is on a police report. One of the oldest continuous names on a Forest park business is Shortstop Lounge, not Shortstop Tavern as the report lists; and at Shortstop Lounge the clientele shoot pool, not billiards.

            In your response to my comment you write, “What change or changes exactly do you call for Iceman?” My answer is this; my advertising expenditures run well into the 5 figures, I would love to spend some of that in the Review. Some time ago a group of businesses wanted to promote an idea or opinion to the Village. I suggested using the Review because it is published weekly. Two or 3 of the business owners said they would have nothing to do with that paper because of its biased reporting. It is my opinon that the editor is at least partially responsible for the precipitous decline in both subscriber base and readership. Mr. Dwyer, please look at the police reports for Dec. 1-8, I believe you will see my point. I would love to see a vibrant, well supported newspaper in Forest Park.

Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 2:46pm

To Observerofdoom, AKA: Onion router boy, lol. When you write “should she lose her job over this?.. absolutely not!”  Based on what I have written so far you are absolutely right. However, I wish to make 2 points. First there is a lot more to come. Second, I am talking to scores of residents who are reporting other inaccuracies or poorly written stories on their area of interest. What one person explained is that “if you object to an inaccuracy in a story, you just give the story and extra week of life. Better to leave the inaccuracies unchallenged and read something else!”

Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 2:47pm

Jerry writes, “may I point out that the Review is a Forest Park paper not an Oak Park paper. This could be why she does not write about Oak Park liquor establishments…”  Jerry, I apologize for the miscommunication of an important point. The Forest Park editor also writes the police reports for the Oak Park sister newspaper. I have read through those and could not find reference to liquor establishments having their “owners” town of origin published. This treatment apparently is reserved for one group of businesspeople-Forest Park bar owners. In spite of my meager writing skills I believe I am making valid points.

Back to Top
piehead View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote piehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 3:41pm
Iceman, in all the different papers (oak Park, Riverside) they list the town the people are from. And I thought that the person that did this was not the owner?
Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by piehead piehead wrote:

Iceman, in all the different papers (oak Park, Riverside) they list the town the people are from.

Could you please point out for me in the Oak Park Crime Reports , same writer, where "owners" are mentioned by name and where they reside because I'm not finding any?


Edited by Iceman - 22/December/2013 at 5:35pm
Back to Top
watcher View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Active here since 2001

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by Iceman Iceman wrote:

It is my opinon that the editor is at least partially responsible for the precipitous decline in both subscriber base and readership.


Do you even realize where you're writing this?

It is my opinion that an element of our community has made it their mission to discredit the local paper. They miss no opportunity to catapult their propaganda. We've all heard it, how it's Oak Park owned, how it's biased against MATC & Co., that you can't believe anything they write yada yada blah blah blah. How much nicer it would be if people got their "news" direct from Village Hall...or the Post?

Maybe Dan Haley will chime in with his perspective?

"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"
Back to Top
piehead View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote piehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2013 at 10:14pm
Originally posted by Iceman Iceman wrote:



Originally posted by piehead piehead wrote:

Iceman, in all the different papers (oak Park, Riverside) they list the town the people are from.

Could you please point out for me in the Oak Park Crime Reports , same writer, where "owners" are mentioned by name and where they reside because I'm not finding any?


They are probably not listed because the bar owners in Oak Park aren't committing crimes.
Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/December/2013 at 8:05pm
there are no bars in OP - only restaurants that serve alcohol. the town was 'dry' until Poor Phils and RF is dry, i believe.

FP is a bar town, Iceman, and has been for 100 years. apples/oranges with very different police problems.
FP wants to have it both ways - we're OP/RF 'stable' and Proviso 'easy.'  w/no working HS.
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/December/2013 at 12:14am
Rf not dry Citizen, but, you're right, it ain't FP.
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
jlotus2 View Drop Down
Lurker
Lurker


Joined: 23/December/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jlotus2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26/December/2013 at 12:44pm
It's awkward to weigh in on a post demanding my resignation. Nonetheless, I just want to clarify a few things. 

Iceman: The reason Forest Park crime reports are more detailed than Oak Park's has to do with the information shared by the police departments in each village. Forest Park gives the media the incident reports -- which include police narratives. Oak Park gives us a summary, which can include over 50 incidents per week. These are very brief and so a summary is usually what ends up in the Wednesday Journal police blotter.

The only bar-owner who was arrested in Oak Park in 2013 was Frank Elliott, the owner of the torched Velvet Rope, who was charged with arson and insurance fraud. We named him and also listed his city-of-residence (Chicago). 

In general, police narratives are often incomplete, sometimes inaccurate and that is worked out in court, usually. That's why we use words like "allegedly" and "reportedly."  An arrest is a matter of public record, but we usually do not name people arrested unless they are charged with a serious felony or are a "public person." In the case of Chalk, we named Matt because he was the owner, not a bartender. We did not name bartenders in other police briefs about after-hours serving this year. 

With regard to the incident at Chalk, the police report said the incident ended at 2:30 a.m. and described the police having to repeatedly tell patrons to exit the bar. I feel confident that my description of taking half-an-hour to clear the bar is backed by the document.

As for other errors, I am always committed to accuracy and will update and correct any error that is brought to my attention. 

Jean Lotus, Editor
Forest Park Review
jlotus@forestparkreview.com







Back to Top
citizen View Drop Down
Local Authority
Local Authority
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote citizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26/December/2013 at 10:49pm
two things.
1) who's got liquor in RF?
2) off w/her head! 

ever wonder why our village PTB, who have enormous powers, not to mention responsibilities, can do no wrong (duh, they're really friendly, regular guys and they help me out. duh) but the town's newspaper is held to impeccable standards?
curious.
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27/December/2013 at 12:02am
The old Boston Market had a liquor service license created by the village wine and beer service and take out bottles of wine with food, and a couple of restaurants on Harlem in the RF Town Center have them. 

The village is open to service licenses for new development involving restaurants on a case by case basis. Like I said, not comparable to FoPa. 

FWIW, I think the complaints over Review bias are overblown, and Jean stated her case quite well. 
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
Observerofdoom View Drop Down
Tourist
Tourist


Joined: 11/October/2013
Location: NA
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Observerofdoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27/December/2013 at 12:17pm
I have heard of trial by social media...now we have Iceman's trial by "message board" Cry We must mobilize to save Jean's job! Let's start at the Ale House in OP tonight Clap ..neutral ground and I don't think they offer quarter in FP Angry For all we know Ice is gathering signatures and will be posting more info! I will start the Twitter hashtag #IstandwithJean, Sharon bring pens, notepads & coffee, Watcher bring your thinking cap, Pie & Logic start working on the posters, Bill D., you cover the front door.  Wink


Back to Top
watcher View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Active here since 2001

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27/December/2013 at 1:19pm
Happy Birthday Jean!


"It is a wreave belief that we already are in Hell."- Tuluk in Frank Herbert's "Whipping Star"
Back to Top
Bill Dwyer View Drop Down
Pillar
Pillar
Avatar

Joined: 31/August/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Bill Dwyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27/December/2013 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by Observerofdoom Observerofdoom wrote:

I have heard of trial by social media...now we have Iceman's trial by "message board" Cry We must mobilize to save Jean's job! Let's start at the Ale House in OP tonight Clap ..neutral ground and I don't think they offer quarter in FP Angry For all we know Ice is gathering signatures and will be posting more info! I will start the Twitter hashtag #IstandwithJean, Sharon bring pens, notepads & coffee, Watcher bring your thinking cap, Pie & Logic start working on the posters, Bill D., you cover the front door.  Wink

And Obsdoom will be at his normal post in the men's room, scrawling nonsense on the toilet stall walls. 
Facts are a bitch and the truth most hurts the liars
Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30/December/2013 at 3:21am

Piehead wrote; “They  are probably not listed because the bar owners in Oak Park aren’t committing any crimes.”

Citizen wrote, “There are no bars in Oak Park – only restaurants that serve alcohol.” & “FP is a bar town, Iceman, and has been for 100 years. apples/oranges with very different police problems.”

At least some of the “restaurant bars” in Oak Park exhibit many of the same characteristics as many “bar restaurants” in Forest Park.  Probably the 3 busiest liquor bars in Forest Park are Fat Duck, Healy’s and Docs. All have complete menus. Maybe the cheapest place to buy a domestic bottle on a Sunday is Piggyback. The cheapest beer in Forest Park last summer was the dollar beer special at Scratch Kitchen. For a long time an Oak Park “restaurant bar” has had a dollar domestic bottle day. To put it charitably, on that day, this “restaurant bar” was as much of a bar as any place in Forest Park.

One reason why restaurants “morph” into bars is because the 3 or so hours a day the restaurant flourishes often is not enough to pay the bills. So even high end restaurants like Café Deluca have had half price wine nights. It is not surprising that a November underage drinking sting in Oak Park found almost half the “restaurant bars” served minors. Now I might have missed it (but if I did where is it?), I don’t see this reported in either the police reports or general articles in the Oak Park paper. Yet a similar Forest Park sting is misreported and investigated for 2 weeks. My question is, why the difference in reporting?  

Back to Top
Iceman View Drop Down
Nomad
Nomad
Avatar

Joined: 17/October/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30/December/2013 at 3:22am

The editor of the Forest Park Review wrote, “With regard to the incident at Chalk, the police report said the incident ended at 2:30 a.m. and described the police having to repeatedly tell patrons to exit the bar. I feel confident that my description of taking half-an-hour to clear the bar is backed by the document.”

                The editor’s description is not at all supported by the document, in fact the contrary. The police report clearly states that “after myself and Ofc Frey were able to completely clear the bar, I went to speak with the bar employees.” Therefore, clearly part of the occurrence took place “after the bar was cleared.” How much of a part? 3 people present told me that the bar was cleared in 5 to 10 minutes. What matters most is that 1) the editor’s correction makes the incident look worse than it was and 2) her conclusion is just not supported by the police report. A second correction needs to be issued.

                Concerning the incident at Chalk, these questions need to be answered: The editor’s original reporting stated that the police arrived at 2:30 to find 20 people drinking at the bar. The correct time according to the police report and ticket was 2:01. Mathey asked for a correction and none came. I asked for a correction and the time was corrected to 2:04. Why was this not corrected when Mathey pointed it out? Then after I asked her to correct it, the time was changed to 2:04. Why the second mistake, why no second correction? The “mistake” always makes the incident look worse than it was.

                On another topic…how was it decided that the lead crime story in the Forest Park Review Dec 1 to 8 was a $14 theft off the bar at Shortstop? With all the crimes committed in the Village that week, how was it that this deserved to be first? Let’s have a public discussion on the methodology that was used to rank crime stories that week. I see bar-bashing bias that seldom, if ever, occurs in the Oak Park paper. Forest Park editor, what say you?

Back to Top
piehead View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote piehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30/December/2013 at 9:19am
So it appears that iceman is friends with the people at the bar after hours then? Do ya think maybe they are, in fact, stretching the truth? They were drinking after hours and perhaps 5 to 10 minutes were actually 25 to 30?

And as far, as the Chalk time differential; who cares. The bar was open with 20 people after hours. They were breaking the law. Whether 1 minute or 30, still in the wrong. That's why many bars have their clocks set for bar time (15 minutes fast). So that when closing time comes, they are closed! Pretty simple.

Iceman, you a bar owner/manager/operator?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
A.Lange & Sohne Langematik Tourbillon Replica Watches ,and it must be a dream replica watches. Brand, style, visibility, features are absolutely assiduous, they not only added to their own sort of power in the rolex replica sale, and certainly can bear, "handed down" in the name. Now here is a fantastic choice for you, if you heard of Langematik Tourbillon rolex replica sale , this article will be much helpful to you. The function of a breitling replica sale is no longer confined to more of a symbol used to reflect personal taste. For men, the rolex replica uk is a symbol of their status; the contrary, a woman wearing a replica watches in addition to at the time, the greatest use is decorative, fashion Langematik Tourbillon breitling replica sale , elegance, style, simplicity, there is a pressing vulgarity temperament.