Life Of Jason

I was picking up a rather unflavorful hot chocolate at a local coffee house when I saw an issue of GO Magazine with a parody of a Monopoly board on the front page. Since I haven’t read this periodical before I decided to give it a spin.

I gave it a quick flip through before reading the articles and was disheartened to see an apparent liberal political bias thanks to the “GO Grid” on page 8. They took a shot at “widestance Senators” (an obvious knock at Republican Senator Larry Craig) and put “local talk radio” in the “nefarious” and “wack” section of the grid little better than OJ Simpson. (Now, one could say they were talking all local radio but they included a photo of conservative local talk show host Vincent David Jericho.) While there were no positive things said about a liberal, Democrat or liberally leaning organization there was also no negative. The one-sided tone was very noticeable. I was under the impression this newspaper was to promote downtown, events happening there and highlighting things like downtown restaurants and not a liberally oriented political newspaper.

Fortunately, it seemed the political bias was limited to the “GO Grid.” The interview with Rachel Peacock-Young was informative and answered some questions that many could have about the Springfield Little Theatre. It wasn’t a long piece but it packed a good punch. I’d be interested to see a longer piece on the Theatre.

They mentioned a new nightclub that may or may not be coming to downtown Springfield called Jewel. GO reported that the press release claimed the location of this “upscale” club was going to be revealed only a week before the opening. This super secret club’s opening will apparently be hosted by MTV (that channel that at one time played music videos) and a “well-known guest DJ.” GO commented asking why you wouldn’t want the public at that opening instead of making it a VIP only event but admitted a bias because apparently the club is owned by Jesse Witham of Downtown Beat magazine which is a GO Magazine rival. No, GO, you’re not biased here. They should open to the public and if they want a VIP event just hold it in their VIP room. Then again, it’s his club, so if he wants to flip the bird to the general public on opening night it’s his right.

The piece on the downtown area was well written and constructed. I liked that they took to task the downtown cruising ordinance that never should have been enacted in the first place. A taxi stand idea downtown (as apparently pushed by the Urban Districts Alliance) is a good idea to help decrease DUI but will people really take advantage of it? It’s my two cents that a lot of DUI comes from people being selfish and not wanting to spend the money for a cab plus deal with the hassle of picking up their car later on. (If they’re sober enough to think in the first place.) Taxis are a good idea but we need to make sure bars and nightclubs actively promote them if they’re there.

The parking puzzles article was dead on and highlights the inevitable regarding free parking in downtown. You usually have to pay to park in many major cities when you want to go downtown and Springfield is quickly moving in that direction. The map the editors created about where they feel parking would be available was right on the mark and it’s not unreasonable for people to have to walk a few blocks during a Friday or Saturday night. Let’s just make sure the streets are lighted enough and the parking areas as well so that crime can be discouraged. Safety measures for women need to be provided so that someone doesn’t get attacked because they had to park in a darkened lot five blocks from downtown.

I was very surprised by the Survivor: Springfield article talking about downtown business turnover. I was under the impression that downtown was failing and that more businesses were closing than opening but the numbers don’t bear that out. I was very happy to be wrong in that observation. Every category that GO reported on showed net gains. Now, in the spirit of disclosure, the numbers were provided by the Urban Districts Alliance. I’m not familiar with the organization so I can’t comment on the credibility of those numbers. However, I don’t see any reason why they would want to cook those results.

The photos page at the back of the paper was a little cheesy. It’s a quick way to get people to snap up papers (”Hey look! We’re in GO Magazine!”) but the cheese factor is still high.

The “staff poll” with the credits for the magazine was also cheesy but in a way that reminded me of the spirit of MAD Magazine. I just hate to break it to Kari Engel that the Care Bears were not superheroes in any way shape or form. (And before she can change her mind, the Smurfs weren’t superheroes either.)

The editor in his column mentioned the surprising success of The Moxie cinema. I’ve long wanted to visit the place and see what the buzz was about but haven’t seen a movie that I wanted to see badly enough to go downtown, find parking and go. I’m actually a fan of good independent cinema (usually indie horror films that are more suspense than blood & guts in the vein of a Japanese horror flick) and would love to have an excuse to check out the Moxie.

Now, this is off the subject of GO Magazine, but I’d love to see the Moxie throw a celebration when The State is finally released on DVD. Take a night and show the DVD series on the big screen and celebrate the glory that was The State. I’d also like to see them do an all-day run of the films of Jon Keeyes but I won’t hold my breath.

Overall, I was impressed with GO Magazine in a way that it’s parent publication doesn’t really reach out to me. I’m going to have to find more places that carry it so I can pick up a few more issues and see if it’s as impressive in the long run compared to what I saw in this issue.