Left In Lowell

M.K.: We hardly knew you!

41 Responses to “M.K.: We hardly knew you!”

1. Lurker Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 7:57 am

   Word on the street: unceremoniously pushed out. Apparently, her idea of bringing quality news coverage outside of the Campanini agenda and making the newsroom a bit more professional wasn’t what the leaders of the paper had in mind. So, what does Campanini have on the publisher?

2. C R Krieger Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 8:13 am

   Gee, I hope that like all initial reports this is wrong, as I liked MK, who I meet on CIty Life with Mimi.

   Catchy subject line, Mimi.

   Regards  —  Cliff

3. Jack Mitchell Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 9:25 am

   This is awful.

   The Sun is going double down on today’s newspaper consumers with no eye for the future. It was clear that M.K. saw the long angonizing death of The Sun. But, as any business genius will tell you, it is sooooo much better to have ALL your eggs in one basket.

   This is awful.

4. waittilnextyr Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 9:51 am

   Was it that she had something to do with acknowledging that the paper had made a mistake in reporting? That type of honest management would not sit well with the SUN-spin.

5. Paul@01852 Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 9:59 am

   What a shame! MK’s use of Facebook and other social media sites showed foresight and perception of what journalism is becoming. I have noticed a vast improvement in the quality of journalism exhibited by the Sun since she became ME. Even the reporters I have met since she came on board have seemed excited with their assignments. Hopefully that will all continue but somehow I have my doubts.

6. Huh Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 3:12 pm

   “Word on the street: unceremoniously pushed out. Apparently, her idea of bringing quality news coverage outside of the Campanini agenda and making the newsroom a bit more professional wasn’t what the leaders of the paper had in mind. So, what does Campanini have on the publisher?”

   LOL, who is the publisher? Seems more people know Guzda than Mike O’Neil. All I know is that the Sun looks like a club for middle aged white guys. The masthead, the columnists, etc. The paper is increasingly lacking in content and whatever content there is tends to be tilted towards the political agenda of Campanini and friends.

7. Prince Charming Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

   “lacking in content…tilted towards the political agenda of Campanini and friends.”…..this is new??

8. Politics at Work Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 7:47 pm

   How disappointing! I have seen MK Guzda at more community events over the past four months than I have seen the publisher during his entire tenure at the paper. She seemed very earnest and interested in Greater Lowell and very focused on providing accurate and ethical reporting. I should have known that wouldn’t last very long at The Sun! God knows Campanini isn’t known for his belief in either accuracy or ethics. And no one even knows the publisher.

9. Faustus Says:
   April 6th, 2011 at 8:45 pm

   I can’t say I’m totally surprised but I had some hope. Through the social media presence I finally saw the real community engagement that has been lacking at the Sun. I was also seeing the beginnings of some honest reporting though I still don’t understand why J. Myers isn’t still doing the Council meetings. Bottom line is that some changes were happening to move the paper into something. I guess I answered my own question of why. The powers at the paper from Wallace on down don’t want anything to change. Same old same old. Pathetic.

   Incredible that someone that only worked at the Sun for a few months in a mostly behind the scene role is getting so much attention. Perhaps that’s what really sealed her fate. Campanini doesn’t like anyone that really knows whats going on in the city. They are on to him and are a threat. Plus, she’s a woman!!! She must have interfered with their 1950’s world.

   Lurker’s got it right. What does he have on O’Neill and Wallace?

10. Michael Luciano Says:
    April 6th, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    The best thing the Sun has going for it from a business standpoint is that it has no competition. I suspect that–and only that–is what’s keeping this operation alive. Unfortunately, these days there isn’t much incentive to start a new newspaper. But I’m guessing any decently-run paper with a comprehensive online version, engaging interactive features, better aesthetics, and an Op-Ed page that isn’t written in crayon could bury the Sun within three years of launch.

    If I had the start-up capital I’d do it. Would probably need a few hundred thousand dollars. Maybe less if it started with a dedicated skeleton staff willing to work for not that much money, at least to start.

    Any thoughts?

11. History Buff Says:
    April 7th, 2011 at 6:05 am

    What?? The Sun get rid of a strong woman? Why does this sound like history repeating itself? I am not surprised by this action.

    I think Michael Luciano is correct. If The Sun had any competition, it would be in serious danger.

12. Politics at Work Says:
    April 7th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    I think both Luciano and History Buff make valid points. I’d love to see another newspaper in the Lowell area. I keep hearing rumors that someone is considering it. I know I’d invest some cash if it meant getting a fair paper!

13. Magnolia Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Like a couple of others on here, I would love to see some real competition for the Sun. It seems like the paper is shrinking every day and has less and less items of interest. Ms Guzda was a breath of fresh air over there and will be missed.

14. History Buff Says:
    April 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    It is a shame. She seemed to become very popular in the area during her brief tenure and was bringing the paper a little closer to the 21st century, which is much needed. I wonder if she is considering legal action?

15. picasso Says:
    April 9th, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    She wouldn’t be the first. I wonder what happened to the investigation by the Department of Labor of the Sun’s treatment of their employees. They are sleazes!

16. no more union looting Says:
    April 11th, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Good riddance to a low-watt, loser, censor.

    Bring back Topix.

17. Jack Mitchell Says:
    April 11th, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Ya! More Topix! More morons means more hits, means more ad revenue!

    Sure, the discussion goes down the shitter, but think of the profit!

18. no more union looting Says:
    April 11th, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    re:Ya! More Topix! More morons mean…the discussion goes down the shitter

    in no forum that I read, anywhere, do I suffer fools, nor did I do so on Topix (translation - skip over them)

    instead, some newspaper moron starting censoring 75 percent of the posts and the whole thing became unreadable (because all that censoring takes time, and the thing became an out-of-date, politically correct irrelevancy

    her STATED POLICY was that no criticism of politicians would be tolerated….who wants to read something like that?

    PS: you are a snob

19. History Buff Says:
    April 11th, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    I was very pleased when Topix was replaced by Disqus. It halted some of the more vitriolic statements and helped to focus discussion a bit. Guzda seemed to bring a lot of positive changes to The Sun and getting rid of Topix was one of them. Her forced departure is a loss for the region and a stupid move by The Sun.

20. no more union looting Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 12:00 am

    re: Disqus vs. Topix and “vitrolic” statements

    Current Sun editorals have this many comments:

    zero
    4
    zero
    3
    3
    zero

    So the biggest “discussion” involved only 4 comments, and these comments usually follow days after the printing (to give time to censor)

    what a joke

21. no more union looting Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 12:01 am

    re: Her forced departure

    WTF are you talking about??????

    what forced departure?

22. tryin to stay anonymous Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 7:01 am

    You want to express your opinion about the Sun’s editorials NMUL? You can still write a letter to the editor or take the easy Backtalk route. Not providing a free forum that exposed the paper to lawsuits isn’t quite the same as censorship. Regardless of the commentor, the sponsor of the forum can be held responsible in court for postings and it said “Lowell Sun Forum” right on it. There is still a Lowell forum on topix, it just isn’t linked to directly from the Sun.

    Not to mention I don’t remember reading your comments on any of the other Lowell blogs until the Sun took away your soapbox. Of course you could start your own blog.

23. no more union looting Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 10:56 am

    re: exposed the paper to lawsuits

    you can’t be sued for commenting on the performance of public officials and those are the posts that have been censored

    that was a pretext (which u swallowed)

24. tryin to stay anonymous Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Regardless of who is being criticized, if you libel someone, the board sponsors and owners can be sued. I’m not talking about criticism of someone with your opinion of how you do their job, that is protected speech.

    Since I was a member of a semi-public discussion site (with paid membership only) that was sued for libel (and essentially forced to settle because they didn’t have the resources to fight out a court battle), I am well aware of what can and cannot be done. The owner of the domain was sued even though he was not the commentor who commited libel.

    Now if you just don’t like the Sun’s ability to have a editorial policy of not printing what they don’t like, want or what doesn’t suit their agenda, welcome to the club. But they buy the ink.

25. Dave Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    please do not feed the trolls. usually they just go away if they are ignored.

26. no more union looting Says:
    April 14th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    interestingly, the censor herself is not posting any info about her abrupt (snicker) departure from Lowell, at her narcissistic website:

    http://kathleenstruck.wordpress.com/

    don’t let the door hit u on the way out!

27. Lynne Says:
    April 14th, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Let me say this - if I owned a real newspaper, as opposed to writing a blog, I would be even more carefully moderating the comments than I do here. I find the manner in which comments are used at most papers’ websites (Boston Globe, Sun, etc) to be completely stupid, inane, useless, and hurtful - that’s at best. I support the right for someone to write anonymously, but I do not support the concept that just because it’s on the web, you deserve to write whatever you want anonymously. People say horrible things they would NEVER say with their name attached, for one.

    If you are visiting MY site, for which I pay the domain name and the hosting, for an organization that I own, you are using the website at MY discretion, and it’s MY reputation at stake when someone comes on and makes the sort of comment that is common on these papers’ websites. Here, we’re pretty liberal about letting comments through, but it’s also BECAUSE we have at least SOME standards that this site is still a fairly pleasant place to come and read, and engage in debate on. Believe it or not.

28. Lynne Says:
    April 14th, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Wow, bitter much? Poor you. I feel bad for you, it must be hard to hold so much disgust for everyone.

    What do YOU have at stake with this that you feel so angry about it? Hmm.

29. no more union looting Says:
    April 22nd, 2011 at 11:43 am

    well, it ’s been a few weeks now……

    does anyone know why “MK” was terminated from The Sun?

30. Politics at Work Says:
    April 23rd, 2011 at 11:19 am

    It’s simple. She pushed for fair, accurate and unbiased reporting and editing. She didn’t care who the editor’s friends are or aren’t, (plus she is a talented, strong and experienced woman - unacceptable!) and therefore the editor didn’t like her. She neglected to be a “yes” man, which is what Campanini and O’Neil want. Of course, hiring only “yes” men and women often spells the eventual downfall of companies. I have heard, and the masthead has shown, that the newspaper also hires and fires ad directors/vice presidents at an embarrassing pace. It is clear there is a lack of solid management skills and good decision-making at Lowell’s daily newspaper.

31. Lynne Says:
    April 23rd, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    There does seem to be a hefty amount of turnover out there for an industry with a lot of desperate labor. I mean, reporters are getting laid off everywhere all the time, so you’d think they’d hold on to a job they have for as long as they can…but not at the Sun. People jump ship there like gangbusters.

    This did not used to be the case. The Sun had a lot of long time reporters who stuck around nearly their whole careers there. I guess times (and quality of leadership) do change.

32. no more union looting Says:
    April 24th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    re: It’s simple. She pushed for…….(etc.)

    Though I appreciate the response, is any of this based on inside knowledge, as opposed to speculation?

    I’m just happy that she is gone. Good riddance to her and her “Boston Globe” ways which are DEFINITELY not needed in Lowell.

33. Lynne Says:
    April 24th, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    You seem to be the single person who thinks this. You still haven’t told us what YOUR stake is in this that you have such a strong hatred.

34. no more union looting Says:
    April 25th, 2011 at 7:40 am

    re: Lynne Says: You seem to be the single person who thinks this. You still haven’t told us what YOUR stake is in this that you have such a strong hatred.

    ASSUMING this is addressed to me, what’s w/ the ad hominem?

    It is very childish to assume that people who disagree w/ you are bad people

    re: hatred - ?????

    Again, to adults, disagreement is not “hatred.” Sheesh.

    My “stake” is that something good to read, and learn from, is gone for no reason.

    re: a “single” person - obviously, her (former) EMPLOYER had problems w/ her (snicker)

35. Lynne Says:
    April 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Let’s review your commentary, shall we?

    “Good riddance to a low-watt, loser, censor.”

    “interestingly, the censor herself is not posting any info about her abrupt (snicker) departure from Lowell, at her narcissistic website:”

    “I’m just happy that she is gone. Good riddance to her and her “Boston Globe” ways which are DEFINITELY not needed in Lowell.”

    Who’s being vitriolic? Hmmm.

    As I said, it must be really sad to be so full of hate.

36. no more union looting Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    to Lynne: Why, oh why, do you “hate” me so?

    you are so full of hate, you hateful person

    I’m sorry but, sadly I must “hate” you in return (not really, just trying to show u how childish you are - just wondering how old are u anyway?)

    (when I was a child I spake like a child, etc….)

37. no more union looting Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    the above is my definition of liberalism

    to persist as thinking like a child on into adulthood

    funny, but when I was young I didn’t have goofy liberal thoughts because my father insisted that we think clearly and appropriately to our ages….

38. Lynne Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Wow, feed the troll the troll gets testy…

39. no more union looting Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    re: Wow, feed the troll the troll gets testy…

    the web definition of a troll is one who changes the topic - I’m anything but that….

    the proper response is, of course, to HATE THE TROLL.

40. Lynne Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Actually no, protocol says ignore the troll, which is what I will be doing from now on now that you’ve revealed yourself.

41. no more union looting Says:
    April 27th, 2011 at 7:53 am

    better yet, like your hero, CENSOR THE TROLL

    don’t worry, this is a very boring site and holds little interest for me….

Leave a Reply