The Times Dispatch makes me angry
Times Dispatch headline: “Richmond residents criticize master plan“
The “residents” quoted are:
- “an attorney representing NewMarket Corp., which owns nearly 70 acres along the James River downtown, including the Ethyl Corp.”
- “executive director of [developer-backed] Venture Richmond”
- “VCU’s associate vice president for facilities management.”
Please tell me: do I even need to comment on this?
January 16, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s good to point this out, simply because those of us who have been here a while get tired of pointing these things out.
Call it “corporate welfare media fatigue”. Just beware of corporate welfare apathy.
January 16, 2008 at 3:04 pm
You must be part of the “hate corporate power” first club. Don’t you know that businesses enjoy full citizenship in these Unied States? We don’t need another war of northern aggression to disenfranchise southern commerce. Seriously though, it’s not a secret which “residents” downtown are the ones that matter. If you’re not a university, a develper, or a member of the Paul Hammond demographic, then you don’t fit into the equation.
January 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
This morning, Victor Dover told me how surprised he was by the headline given that “for every 10 people who spoke in favor, one spoke against the plan” last night. Apparently 50 people spoke (49 spoke in December) and even individuals who spoke in opposition generally praised the plan but spoke against/about specific items.
January 16, 2008 at 3:41 pm
John- you’ve written some about the TD’s new leadership, do you have any insight into this article or what’s going on in the newsroom?
January 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Well big surprise, the TD is an organ of Richmond’s business cabal. It’s Richmond’s very own privatized “Pravda”.
You know, this bit about private citizens encouraging development of the city that benefits the public good is just going too far! That’s just not the way the game is played here in Richmond!
January 16, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The TD recently reorganized its reporting staff. Michael Martz, who has been doing a great job covering the Downtown Plan (his old beat was essentially City Hall), has moved onto a 3-person team focused on breaking news; he also now works mornings to mid-day, which means he isn’t likely going to be covering evening events. Kiran Krishnamurthy appears to be the new City Hall reporter, and I don’t know him at all. He just came from the TD’s Fredericksburg bureau.
I have two guesses at what is at play and they both might be correct:
1) Krishnamurthy doesn’t yet have the relationships with city staff Martz had. That makes a big difference when covering an “event” (last night’s hearing) that has 8 months worth of story and context wrapped around it. You don’t just walk into a story like the Downtown Plan and “get it.”
2) The TD’s new breaking news obsession (Come on, who really is going to break the news before the town’s only paper? Besides a lowly weblog or two…
means a drive to “file it fast and fix it later.”
Just some thoughts.
January 17, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thanks John, for sharing your insight. This particular article doesn’t seem to have the problems of a new reporter on the beat- it’s a matter of confusing people with money & power and a vested interest in how development happens with “residents,” a generic term implying the average jane.
That’s not a new reporter mistake.
In fact, I doubt the reporter wrote the headline (though I confess ignorance about the business of running a newspaper).
Suggestion # 2 may be more on target.
January 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Yeah, my third and forgotten point is that desk editors and copy editors tend to do the headline writing at newspapers — or they did back in the 90s when newspapers were staffed to actually cover the news well.
January 17, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I completely missed this. The “Paul Hammond” demographic? You mean there are others?
January 23, 2008 at 10:54 am
[...] The Times Dispatch makes me angry [...]