Spring Break
The other side of the Robin Hood story
Tim Jacobs
Issue date: 3/19/09 Section: Opinion
I'd like to make a few comments about your shoddy "coverage" of the Robin Hood story.
I know this is a conflict of interest for me, as I am a frequent patron of the establishment, (I live up the street, and I'm lazy) and I consider the owner and the employees good friends of mine, but this has to be said:
The article(s) in question had two major problems that I think need to be addressed:
First, the syntax of the articles make it sound like the Robin Hood encourages under-21 patrons to come drink there. And that is a pile of misconception.
In the two years I've frequented this bar, I've seen them kick out countless under-21-year-olds, attempted patrons for trying to buy alcohol, either at the bar or through an over-21 friend. I've never, ever, seen a staff member just turn the other cheek when catching an under-21 moron try to slip by.
In every case that didn't involve an especially impressive fake identification card (and you should see the trophy stack of fake IDs owner Scott Imhoff has … he should post them like at Bottles as a warning), it's always been an over-21 patron supplying the alcohol to the under-21 patron.
How do they get caught? They're marked, and they're walking around like they're entitled to drink like a bunch of morons. And then they're gone.
Second, where the hell is the owner of the Robin Hood's side of the story? I saw your "coverage" of the story online today and what's in it?
Six or so paragraphs and only one quote from the owner.
Shouldn't he get a fair say in the situation? Seems "fair and balanced" like what you see on the journalistic joke we all know as "Fox News," to me. After all of the heat, shouldn't he be given a chance to defend himself and his establishment's reputation besides a one-sentence quote? Where is Imhoff's side of the story?
Perhaps those are important questions.
I just have to say that, as someone who reports from time-to-time and has to deal with already-burned sources who give me hell to even talk to them because of previous bad experiences with shoddy "coverage," that it makes me sad that these points are left open-ended or not even addressed at all.
It reflects poorly on those of us who are really trying to investigate and make a difference in society and whom aren't trying to half-ass it.
I have to say I'm quite disappointed, as we are a nationally renowned journalism school.
Tim Jacobs is a senior print journalism and political science major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
I know this is a conflict of interest for me, as I am a frequent patron of the establishment, (I live up the street, and I'm lazy) and I consider the owner and the employees good friends of mine, but this has to be said:
The article(s) in question had two major problems that I think need to be addressed:
First, the syntax of the articles make it sound like the Robin Hood encourages under-21 patrons to come drink there. And that is a pile of misconception.
In the two years I've frequented this bar, I've seen them kick out countless under-21-year-olds, attempted patrons for trying to buy alcohol, either at the bar or through an over-21 friend. I've never, ever, seen a staff member just turn the other cheek when catching an under-21 moron try to slip by.
In every case that didn't involve an especially impressive fake identification card (and you should see the trophy stack of fake IDs owner Scott Imhoff has … he should post them like at Bottles as a warning), it's always been an over-21 patron supplying the alcohol to the under-21 patron.
How do they get caught? They're marked, and they're walking around like they're entitled to drink like a bunch of morons. And then they're gone.
Second, where the hell is the owner of the Robin Hood's side of the story? I saw your "coverage" of the story online today and what's in it?
Six or so paragraphs and only one quote from the owner.
Shouldn't he get a fair say in the situation? Seems "fair and balanced" like what you see on the journalistic joke we all know as "Fox News," to me. After all of the heat, shouldn't he be given a chance to defend himself and his establishment's reputation besides a one-sentence quote? Where is Imhoff's side of the story?
Perhaps those are important questions.
I just have to say that, as someone who reports from time-to-time and has to deal with already-burned sources who give me hell to even talk to them because of previous bad experiences with shoddy "coverage," that it makes me sad that these points are left open-ended or not even addressed at all.
It reflects poorly on those of us who are really trying to investigate and make a difference in society and whom aren't trying to half-ass it.
I have to say I'm quite disappointed, as we are a nationally renowned journalism school.
Tim Jacobs is a senior print journalism and political science major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
Be the first to comment on this story