By Armando Acuña -- Bee Public Editor
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, September 3, 2006
The Public Editor deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee's content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Public Editor by mail at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852; by e-mail at publiceditor@sacbee.com; or by calling him directly at (916) 321-1250.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14314711p-15222912c.html
Frustrated supporters of a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings recently asked for a meeting with The Bee's publisher. They had a beef:
The paper's coverage was too negative, especially by some of the columnists, and was shifting public opinion against them before they could get their campaign up and running.
Gathered with publisher Janis Besler Heaphy in her office the afternoon of Aug. 18 were River Cats owner Art Savage, Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson and River Cats executive vice president Warren Smith. Also there was Steve Weiss, the paper's vice president for marketing and public affairs.
"We felt the (arena) was not really getting a fair shot," said Smith, who also heads the fundraising committee for the two arena measures on the November ballot, Propositions Q and R. "We wanted to show some of our frustration."
Heaphy had done her homework. She had copies of and had categorized the paper's stories, columns and editorials written since the arena deal was announced several weeks ago after last-ditch negotiations in Las Vegas with the team's owners, the Maloof family.
The news stories -- and from my view the most important element in this debate -- were not an issue. They were generally balanced and straightforward.
The focus of concern by the arena backers was the columnists, most of whom have raised critical questions about the deal or come out against it. They are writing about a subject that has riveted community attention and sparked passionate discussions like no other local election in recent memory.
Yes, the columnists' tenor was mostly negative, Heaphy agreed. "We pay our columnists to have opinions. That's their job," Heaphy explained in an interview. "Our job is to make sure they don't abuse that role."
Smith said Heaphy told his group "that we have some work to do here too" and advised them to reach out and meet with the columnists and the top newsroom editors, executive editor Rick Rodriguez and managing editor Joyce Terhaar. And they have begun doing so.
Heaphy said the paper can't be a cheerleader on the issue and that its top priority is being independent and making sure its news reporting is accurate and balanced.
The paper, she said, will take an editorial position on the arena, as it does with all major election issues.
She said she personally supports the new arena and will present her views to the paper's editorial board, of which she is a member, in making a case to endorse it.
"As a business person, I believe it's in the best interests of The Bee as a business to have a big-league professional sports team in town and to have a modern, attractive venue for large entertainment events," she said. "We recognize our readers like to read about the Kings and Monarchs as well as major popular music concerts. But on this issue, as on others, our journalism will focus not on The Bee's interest but on the public interest."
The meeting is an indication of the stakes involved and the challenge and pressure facing the paper as it covers a volatile local issue where feelings are running high and which will have long-term repercussions for Sacramento and the region.
Three weeks ago, Rodriguez held a meeting with most of the paper's columnists regarding the arena. He was mainly concerned about two things: There needed to be more coordination paperwide, and he wanted the columnists to express their views based on new reporting and not just to repeat the same opinion over and over.
The coordination became a concern because of what happened in the Aug. 11 paper. On that Friday, The Bee had a front page news story about the arena, as well as columns about it by state political columnist Dan Walters, sports columnist Marcos Bretón and Metro columnist R.E. Graswich. It was arena overload, and no one saw it coming.
Complicating matters, there was an inconsistency on one key fact. As part of the deal, local governments have agreed to pay the possessory interest tax that normally would be paid by the Maloofs.
Walters's column placed the value at more than $6 million a year. The news story placed the value at between $600,000 and $1 million. The inconsistency was noted by several readers.
As for the columnists, Rodriguez said: "We don't tell the columnists what to write. That's an independent decision." But he said that if columns are repetitive "as editor I reserve the right to hold the column, ask for changes or ask them (columnists) to go deeper."
Rodriguez said the columns critical of the arena proposal have given some people the perception "that The Bee as an institution is against the arena."
That perception, he said, is false. As a news story, the paper doesn't take sides.
"Our role is to analyze and dissect the facts and let readers make up their minds," Rodriguez said of the paper's news stories.
He added that the paper intends to hire an independent polling company to survey public opinion about the arena. The results will be published in the paper.
"I think what has been in the paper really reflects what people are saying in the community," Rodriguez said. "There are some strong opinions in the community, a whole spectrum of views. As a paper we have to be as credible as possible. To do otherwise is abrogating our responsibility."
As I said earlier, I think the paper's news stories have been generally balanced and fair, while raising legitimate questions and trying to explain various facets of the deal, even while the final details are still being negotiated.
I also think it's a bit naive and unrealistic on the part of the arena's backers to think that the paper would essentially stand still once the deal hatched in Las Vegas was made public -- a deal that asks voters not only to approve a sales tax increase but also to sign off on more than half a billion dollars in unspecified community projects.
That's what I call one big news vacuum, and the columnists jumped in feet first to fill it, aggressively evaluating and picking apart the deal.
So how do the columnists view their role on this issue? More on that next week.
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, September 3, 2006
The Public Editor deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee's content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Public Editor by mail at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852; by e-mail at publiceditor@sacbee.com; or by calling him directly at (916) 321-1250.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14314711p-15222912c.html
Frustrated supporters of a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings recently asked for a meeting with The Bee's publisher. They had a beef:
The paper's coverage was too negative, especially by some of the columnists, and was shifting public opinion against them before they could get their campaign up and running.
Gathered with publisher Janis Besler Heaphy in her office the afternoon of Aug. 18 were River Cats owner Art Savage, Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson and River Cats executive vice president Warren Smith. Also there was Steve Weiss, the paper's vice president for marketing and public affairs.
"We felt the (arena) was not really getting a fair shot," said Smith, who also heads the fundraising committee for the two arena measures on the November ballot, Propositions Q and R. "We wanted to show some of our frustration."
Heaphy had done her homework. She had copies of and had categorized the paper's stories, columns and editorials written since the arena deal was announced several weeks ago after last-ditch negotiations in Las Vegas with the team's owners, the Maloof family.
The news stories -- and from my view the most important element in this debate -- were not an issue. They were generally balanced and straightforward.
The focus of concern by the arena backers was the columnists, most of whom have raised critical questions about the deal or come out against it. They are writing about a subject that has riveted community attention and sparked passionate discussions like no other local election in recent memory.
Yes, the columnists' tenor was mostly negative, Heaphy agreed. "We pay our columnists to have opinions. That's their job," Heaphy explained in an interview. "Our job is to make sure they don't abuse that role."
Smith said Heaphy told his group "that we have some work to do here too" and advised them to reach out and meet with the columnists and the top newsroom editors, executive editor Rick Rodriguez and managing editor Joyce Terhaar. And they have begun doing so.
Heaphy said the paper can't be a cheerleader on the issue and that its top priority is being independent and making sure its news reporting is accurate and balanced.
The paper, she said, will take an editorial position on the arena, as it does with all major election issues.
She said she personally supports the new arena and will present her views to the paper's editorial board, of which she is a member, in making a case to endorse it.
"As a business person, I believe it's in the best interests of The Bee as a business to have a big-league professional sports team in town and to have a modern, attractive venue for large entertainment events," she said. "We recognize our readers like to read about the Kings and Monarchs as well as major popular music concerts. But on this issue, as on others, our journalism will focus not on The Bee's interest but on the public interest."
The meeting is an indication of the stakes involved and the challenge and pressure facing the paper as it covers a volatile local issue where feelings are running high and which will have long-term repercussions for Sacramento and the region.
Three weeks ago, Rodriguez held a meeting with most of the paper's columnists regarding the arena. He was mainly concerned about two things: There needed to be more coordination paperwide, and he wanted the columnists to express their views based on new reporting and not just to repeat the same opinion over and over.
The coordination became a concern because of what happened in the Aug. 11 paper. On that Friday, The Bee had a front page news story about the arena, as well as columns about it by state political columnist Dan Walters, sports columnist Marcos Bretón and Metro columnist R.E. Graswich. It was arena overload, and no one saw it coming.
Complicating matters, there was an inconsistency on one key fact. As part of the deal, local governments have agreed to pay the possessory interest tax that normally would be paid by the Maloofs.
Walters's column placed the value at more than $6 million a year. The news story placed the value at between $600,000 and $1 million. The inconsistency was noted by several readers.
As for the columnists, Rodriguez said: "We don't tell the columnists what to write. That's an independent decision." But he said that if columns are repetitive "as editor I reserve the right to hold the column, ask for changes or ask them (columnists) to go deeper."
Rodriguez said the columns critical of the arena proposal have given some people the perception "that The Bee as an institution is against the arena."
That perception, he said, is false. As a news story, the paper doesn't take sides.
"Our role is to analyze and dissect the facts and let readers make up their minds," Rodriguez said of the paper's news stories.
He added that the paper intends to hire an independent polling company to survey public opinion about the arena. The results will be published in the paper.
"I think what has been in the paper really reflects what people are saying in the community," Rodriguez said. "There are some strong opinions in the community, a whole spectrum of views. As a paper we have to be as credible as possible. To do otherwise is abrogating our responsibility."
As I said earlier, I think the paper's news stories have been generally balanced and fair, while raising legitimate questions and trying to explain various facets of the deal, even while the final details are still being negotiated.
I also think it's a bit naive and unrealistic on the part of the arena's backers to think that the paper would essentially stand still once the deal hatched in Las Vegas was made public -- a deal that asks voters not only to approve a sales tax increase but also to sign off on more than half a billion dollars in unspecified community projects.
That's what I call one big news vacuum, and the columnists jumped in feet first to fill it, aggressively evaluating and picking apart the deal.
So how do the columnists view their role on this issue? More on that next week.