Forum - View topicNEWS: New York Lists Media Blasters as Dissolved as of April 2011
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
What you're saying is potentially valid but usually only applies to cases where only select facts are reported to give a certain impression. At the end of the day, if an article reports all the facts, people should be capable of reaching the correct conclusions. If they don't...that's on the people. I'm not sure what "context" you want anyway. ANN researched and posted the criteria for a company being dissolved. It was perfectly clear that all this actually meant for certain what that MB had failed to file or pay their taxes. They tried to contact MB and give them a chance to explain what had happened but they didn't respond. What else specifically would you have them add to this story? It sounds to me like you want a speculative opinion piece about what this might mean for MB. If that's the case though you want an editorial, not a news report. |
||||||||||
369corn
Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||
ANN is not the New York Times. I'm tired of hearing all this stuff that Media Balsters did not respond by some ANN imaginary deadline. This story is not the Pentagon Papers. It's a story about tax filings in 2011. There is no particular timeliness to it. Would it have really hurt ANN to wait to hear the other side of the story? Media Blasters and ANN have both been around a long time. A little professional courtesy would have gone a long way in this situation to avoid harm to both parties.
|
||||||||||
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||||||
By their own account in the article, they just filed 2009 and 2010. That could also imply that 2011 is still not filed yet The fault is most likely on MB's end.
There is a time deadline for responses. The reporter's deadline is what's respected. See Unicef document page 4http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/childrenskit/pdf/media-tips-eng.pdf Last edited by hikaru004 on Sat May 05, 2012 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||||||||
Regardless of this, please support Media Blasters, they are a good company, they release good anime, and they do a good job of doing so. Please help keep them alive (buy their stuff), I would hate to see them shut down.
|
||||||||||
RyanSaotome
Posts: 4210 Location: Towson, Maryland |
|
|||||||||
They DID wait. MB could have just ignored them forever. Why would MB bother responding to an article that is bad news for them if they had to wait for their response to post the article? Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable so ANN gave them a week. Deadlines are there for a reason. And ANN is called the Anime News Network. Their job is to post news that related to anime. |
||||||||||
369corn
Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||
I guess Chris Mcdonald thought John Sirabella's email address had "dissolved" too. It doesn't count if the email address bounces and you do not bother to send another or look up the right address.
|
||||||||||
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
Yes, indeed, if that was the only effort to contact them, it'd be easy to see finding fault with that. But it wasn't, so that's a hypothetical. It could be that actually dealing with this took precedence over taking press inquiries, but if that was the decision that was made ~ either explicitly, or implicitly by letting checking the phone slide while all hands were on deck dealing with the mess ~ then you've got to wear the consequences. A pro-active approach would have been to contact ANN when you learned that this information was being circulated at AX, and let them know that you have advice from an accountant or lawyer or whatever that its not as major an issue as some people were trying to make out and that you are working on it. Just from idle curiosity, I do wonder which rival distributor was spreading this around at AX. |
||||||||||
LUNI_TUNZ
Posts: 809 |
|
|||||||||
They also said they left several other e-mails and voice messages, so they didn't just go "Doh well, the e-mail bounced. Print that bitch". |
||||||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
I don't see any point in arguing with 369corn. It is clear that ANN made every effort to get MBs side of the story. This is explained in the article and has also been explained in response to him specifically several times now. It seems apparent that he's fully committed to his own preconceived opinion on this however and will simply keep playing dumb no matter what anyone says.
|
||||||||||
EricDent
Posts: 997 Location: Georgetown, TX |
|
|||||||||
I am just curious why a DVD/Blu-Ray release of Godzilla Vs Megalon is going to take another 4 months to bring out? Especially since it's supposed to be "barebones".
According to somebody on another board the CEO of Media Blasters is "old fashioned", so he only has an office phone? That seems a bit odd giving the state of technology today (where pretty much everybody has a cell phone). Plus if he was going to be out of town, he could have had his messages forwarded to the new place. It just seems that all that bickering could have been handled in private over the phone. Instead of acting like they had gone back to second grade. |
||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24030 |
|
|||||||||
Exactly. I'm quoting this in answer to ikc's question above:
I didn't need ANN to speculate why the state of New York had listed Media Blasters as dissolved; what I could have used is something along the lines of, "...companies that find themselves in this position do have options to get reinstated. Such a status is not an automatic indication that the company is out of business nor that it will be forced to close its operation right away. Our efforts to contact Media Blasters have not been successful to date, so we are not able to report their position on this matter at this time. We hope to provide that information as soon as possible." That's it, really. |
||||||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
Yeah...I suppose that ANN could have mentioned this. It would have made the story more clear. That said, nothing in the article indicates that this is irreversible either. Nor is there any particular reason to assume it is.
They did say this, just not in so many words. |
||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24030 |
|
|||||||||
Yeah, I wasn't trying to indicate they hadn't, although I can see where my inclusion of that might be confusing. I only threw that in to indicate the additional information that I would have found useful could have come at the end of the article. Again, also true that they never indicated it was irreversible, but if you are a layperson like me, the way they structured the article really made the situation look dire. Perhaps you didn't need any further context, but I certainly did and judging by other comments, such as the one from Saffire that I quoted above, other people did as well. In journalism, more information is better than less, especially on a website where space/length is not an issue.
|
||||||||||
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||||||
It was/is a dire situation. IF they don't file in 2012, they'll be back in the same situation again with 2011 not filed. They have to fix the underlying problem. Here's the eHow column on how to reverse it. http://www.ehow.com/how_7308857_stop-involuntary-dissolution.html |
||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24030 |
|
|||||||||
Yes, the article made clear it was a dire situation. Would it didn't make clear was the possibility that it was something that could be rectified somewhat easily.
... Wow, I wonder how many times I'm going to have to make that point? |
||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group