The Idaho Daily Statesman is in a world of hurt. With its parent company losing big bucks due to the collapse of classified advertising, one of its top editors is taking heat for saying the University of Idaho should be bombed. Yikes.
The Boise Weekly picked up an earlier report from a Spokesman Review blog that had Mike Prater saying this of the UI on KTIK/ESPN Radio 1350 KTIK The Ticket (there’s your radio tie) last month:
They’re a horrible team, they’re a horrible program. the fans are horrible. The athletic director’s horrible, the president’s horrible. Everybody and everything associated with that program is horrible. They should take a bomb and blow it up and start all over again.
The Weekly’s Shea Andersen also has a dynamite piece on the problems facing the Statesman and other newspapers in our state.
The paper’s owner, McClatchy lost $1.3 billion bucks in the most recent quarter. This is McClatchy’s two year stock chart:
Statesman editor Vicki Gowler: “this is the most challenging time I’ve seen as an editor.”
Boise Weekly: “Gowler said her paper’s circulation is either flat or up only slightly, depending on the edition.”
New Audit Bureau of Circulations figures that hit the street last month show that - despite an increase in population and big efforts by the paper to prop up circulation numbers… fewer and fewer people are getting the paper.
ABC numbers in June of 2006 show the Statesman selling 65,124 copies (link). The latest figure? 61,473 as of September 2007 - a decrease of six percent (link). Not surprisingly, the paper is still quoting the old numbers in its online customer service section.
For reference, Gowler told BW that the Statesman’s circulation is up or flat, depending on the edition. The Sunday edition also lost ground, 86,434 to 83,038.
The Statesman employs some fantastic, hard-working people - truly. I know several of them, and most of them even know how beleaguered their employer is.
UPDATE: Changed the headline from “Prater says UI should be bombed on KTIK” to “Prater says on KTIK that UI should be bombed” … for obvious reasons.
on Dec 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I dont agree with a great many things the Boise Weekly says but I sure as hell respect them and the fact they will say it. PLEASE expand your circulation efforts to the rest of the Valley!!! You provide a much needed perspective.
on Dec 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Wow. Well done, editor.
on Dec 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I heard Prater’s comments on KTIK. I agree with his premise that Vandal football and basketball is rated so low that it brings down strength of schedule ratings for other WAC teams (e.g. Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno, & Nevada). Perhaps U of I should pull out of athletics for a year or two and reassess the quality of their athletic programs, their recruiting challenges (e.g. recruiting against Washington State and Boise State) and decide how they can market their school to more quality athletes. However, to state on air that someone or something “…should take a bomb and blow it up and start all over again” is not the smartest way to make the point. While I understand Prater’s point, advocating the bombing anything in the post-Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 environment we live in is irresponsible, immature, unprofessional, and very insensitive. I think wiser words could have been chosen to express his view.
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 am
Prater meant it literally. How about context? Did he say it out of nowhere? No, maybe Andrew Paul was prying for a shocking statement from Prater. Buster, I know you have heard the show before.
“While I understand Prater’s point, advocating the bombing anything in the post-Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 environment we live in is irresponsible, immature, unprofessional, and very insensitive. I think wiser words could have been chosen to express his view.”
Good God, comparing sports to war didn’t begin yesterday. If we can’t speak using metaphors Buster, well I guess the terrorists have already won.
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
As I recall, Prater provided a brief synopsis of the downturn of Vandal athletics in recent years establishing foundation for his comments. Whether he was encouraged by Andrew, Caves, or others to provide shocking statements is irrelevant since I believe Prater is a responsible and independent voice who will voice his opinions free from corporate control.
I understand the point he was trying to make and think it valid. However, I just feel he could have exercised more caution in word choice. But, he chose to use the verbiage he used and I would have chosen to word my statement differently. However, I will always support his freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Just because we have a debate regarding word choice does not mean terrorists have won. In this case, I believe we agree on the premise at heart in this issue and the discussion of word choice is distantly secondary.
on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
So whats the point. Everyone is entitled to make an Ass out of themselves. This was Prater’s opportunity and he did not let anyone down. He did it in a public venue so all the world could see him in the spotlight.
I agree the Vandal program is less than desired. The problems seems to be the UI’s lack of vision, lack of investment in the program(s) and an overall lack of energy to have vision. I think there is obvious lack of leadership in the UI administration building on a great many issues including atheletics.
It did not help matters when Dennis Erickson left for better pay and more opportunity… Dropping his pants and telling Idaho to kiss his reputation on the way out the door. It does not help either the social-economic situation that is currently affecting natural resourced based North Idaho,etc. The money is just not flowing North any more. This is BSU’s moment in time- everything is cyclical. This too shall pass…hah, hah.
I may not agree with Prater’s or his overheated, moronic stupid comments but I will neverthelss support his right to speak his mind under the First Ammendment. I rather doubt he should be take litterally on this one. It would not hurt for him to run a clarification in the “local” paper if he fears his comments were taken out of context. Oh, and one other thing….
GO VANDALS.
on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 am
RadioActive identifies the crux of the problem well when he states, “The problems seems to be the UI’s lack of vision, lack of investment in the program(s) and an overall lack of energy to have vision. I think there is obvious lack of leadership in the UI administration building on a great many issues including athletics.”
Question: How can the U of I attract someone qualified to be an educational or athletic administrator who has a vision, a plan of investment, and the energy to rebuild the U of I to Moscow when it is nestled eight miles from a Pac 10 school and about six hours north of Boise State, an institution regularly receiving academic and athletic recognition from Idaho’s political and business nucleus?
Regarding Coach Erickson, U of I was having problems long before Erickson. He just came in with a fanfare and big promises to revitalize the football program and left when Arizona State offered him big money and told him he wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole school.
on Dec 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Anybody else find the irony that Buster Bronco takes his shots at Prater, telling him he should choose his words better. Yet he hides behind “Buster Bronco” so his chosen words don’t come back to personally bite him in the butt. Well done.
on Dec 4th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Personally, I think it’s pretty sad that everybody is so upset at how “insensitive” Prater is instead of realizing how over sensitive they are being. IT’S JUST A SIMPLE FIGURE OF SPEECH. His intent was not that they should actually blow the place up, so why are you pulling a Bill O’Reilly on his ass and insinuating such a thing? Seriously, isn’t there a better way to spend our time?
on Dec 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
The facts are clear… Idaho has not been able to compete in either the WAC, or the Sun Belt for that matter. They play in an obsolete building that cannot either (a) seat the minimum required by the NCAA and or (b) average the minimum amount required. There really is no way to cram more seats into the Goodyear Dome because it is nearly structually impossible to accomplish, unless they lose the track, dig it down, and maybe they can add a few hundred seats. It will be a minimum improvement at best. They seriously should consider dropping down into what was 1-AA where they can be competitive. Basketball can stay in Div. 1. University of Montana has a better excuse to be in the likes of the WAC. Competitive teams, a stadium that is, allbeit under NCAA guidelines, they beat the minimum per game requirements by almost 7,000. I am assuming Prater meant bust the program up and start from scratch. I understood what he meant, I’m puzzled why others did not.
on Dec 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
They did not understand, because the word “bomb” triggers a knee-jerk reaction that downshifts them into the “stupidity” portion of the brain. That is the portion that is responsible for the concept of “political correctness.”
on Dec 4th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
“Anybody else find the irony that Buster Bronco takes his shots at Prater, telling him he should choose his words better. Yet he hides behind “Buster Bronco” so his chosen words don’t come back to personally bite him in the butt. Well done.”
Disclaimer: Any similarity between the Buster Buster of this forum and the lovable Boise State mascot is purely coincidental. The Buster Bronco of this forum may reveal his true identity in future forums (no, he’s not Cosmo Kramer either). I do appreciate the compliment delivered by Ian.
To be clear, while Prater’s words were unfortunate, the real issue is Idaho’s inability to compete in the WAC and their unwillingness to provide leadership that will restore credibility to the school and conference. At this point, Ian, please propose a solution to the primary issue on the table. At least bombing the U of I would have forced the school to examine itself and it’s role as an educational and athletic institution.
on Dec 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Sorry, I wish I could think of a solution, but every time I try to come up with an answer I get frustrated and then I go get drunk. (I learned that technique from a U of I grad.)
on Dec 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
So now we know why the Idaho speech and debate teams are unsuccessful as well. They utilize inebriation to accomplish avoiding the question. Who can blame them. If I were an Idaho alumnus I may be drinking too.
Even when trying half of my gigantic Bronco brain behind my back just to make it fair for Vandals, I am unable to generate a clear solution to said issue. However, it seems Idaho’s marketing team is not doing an effective job promoting what the university has to offer geographically and academically. After clicking the “About the University” tab on the home page, the university simply states, “…we’re ranked among the top national universities in the country (U.S. News & World Report). We’re also one of the best values in higher education (The Princeton Review).” It does not explain how the rankings were earned nor does it speak of the advantages of being located in Moscow.
So, I would market what the university has to offer geographically and and academically first. Second, I would promote the vision of the university administration and faculty. What goals do they have for the next year, five, ten, twenty years?
In contrast, BSU’s website promotes the development of a Family Medicine Residency to Study Family Medicine Work Force in Rural Communities, Heidi Reeder as the 2007 Idaho Professor of the Year, the Campaign for Boise State , and the upcoming visit of Idaho elementary school teacher and astronaut Barbara Morgan, who flew on the Space Shuttle Endeavor last summer. Clearly, a vision of the university is established on the home page.
Now, in danger of being bashed by Vandals, I am not naive enough to believe nothing great is happening in Moscow. I know great things are happening there. However, it is not being promoted and the university vision is not being communicated. This may partly to blame for Idaho’s inability to attract quality student athletes. If no vision is established in academics, no vision takes place in academia either.
on Dec 5th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
blah, blah, blah. What a joke that everyone is trippin’ on his comment. What a sad, sick, crazy pc world we live in. I wish someone would blow up this website. Literally.
on Dec 5th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
While I have NO love affair at all with BSU, and I won’t get into BroncoBashing here (its just not worth fueling the fire of blaze that there will never be an end too…) I will say that I have too have visited the UI website and have been more or less unimpressed as hell with it as well. There is certainly a need to get PR and marketing efforts back in order. I would assume that this is a lack of effort on the part of the administration and others in high places. A shame. The University of Idaho is great school that seems to have fallen on some hard times. If not, then is sure would seem that way in terms of public perception…hint, hint,
on Dec 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
I know great people are doing great things at U of I. I just really wish they would promote such things as the Jazz Festival, the Engineering Department’s association with NASA, and animal research in conjunction with the Nez Perce Indian tribe. However, I had to dig to find out about such things. Boise State, Washington State, Washington, Oregon, and Oregon State all openly promote exciting events and developments on campus. Falling on difficult financial times should not prevent Idaho from promoting events and energy on campus. Doing so would be helpful to them.
While blowing up the website would not be helpful, I certainly believe redesigning would be beneficial. However, I just looked at UTEP’s website and saw nothing to draw me to El Paso either.