Bee: Public Editor: Arena backers put Bee's columnists in spotlight

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#1
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.
 
#2
I just got finished reading this tripe in a hard copy of the Bee (which I purchased only to get a Michael's 50% coupon to use this morning).

Talk about a piece which repeats nothing over and over.

Naturally, the Bee editor Acuna kisses the rump of his publisher and claims that that the Bee coverage has been "balanced." Nothing is further from the truth as we have pointed out here, and it was crystal clear to the arena backers, too, or why else would they call such a meeting?

None of us backers expect the paper to be rah-rah about this proposition. However, we do expect responsible journalism to present both sides of the sticking points, and only then make the case of their own opinions (if they are columnists), not this massive one-sided bombardment we have been treated to so far.

Yes, it's true, Voisin and Breton have made the cases in favor of the new arena. However, I suspect that the large majority of those that pick up the paper to read sports are in favor of the measure. Not all, but most.

The news reporters and columnists have been unanimously opposed to it, and all but a few reporting pieces have had a negative "slant" to them (or trying to lead the reader by the nose to a desired conclusion), which is inappropriate unless they are opinion column writers.

Acuna fails to point out that his "fact" reporters (columnists too) have made false claims, misrepresented facts, and written half-truths about this deal. These have all been uncovered and proven here in other threads.

The Bee's news reporters and columnists should be charged to do a much better job in the future when they "analyze and dissect the facts" and get it right. And then, they should REALLY present their findings in a balanced way to truly "let the readers make up their minds."

That hasn't happened yet, and I'm not holding my breath on future presentations.

As an arena supporter, I welcome healthy discussions of the potential negatives of this deal. And my eyes stay wide open, along with my mind, if some incontravertible negative factoid ever comes out. So far, though, reading and participating in arena debates here and elsewhere, the facts placed before me so far just do not back up the naysayers on the key issues. The key opposition issues are rooted in raw emotionalism, ignorance about ALL the facts, and a general failure to see the reality of consummating a big business deal and the future of the region.

Again, I hope, I pray, that the supporters' PR campaign we are still waiting for will hit all the key issues head on with presentation of solid facts and very little emotion.
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#3
The most ironic statement of the piece?

As a paper we have to be as credible as possible.
That was made by executive editor Rick Rodriquez.

...

...

...

Further comment by me at this point is unnecessary.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#5
Did you notice the lack of attention paid to Daniel Weintraub's writings? He was obviously and blatantly WRONG at least twice and yet the "public editor" doesn't even address that in any way...

I liked the old "ombudsman" much better. This guy is little more than a company lackey pretending to represent the public view.
 
#6
Did you notice the lack of attention paid to Daniel Weintraub's writings? He was obviously and blatantly WRONG at least twice and yet the "public editor" doesn't even address that in any way...
^^^ does this suprise you from a paper that essentially makes-up sports stories i.e. Bonzi and Peja squirmish is the locker room early last season, and then the paper fails to fess-up to the mistake? The Bee is clearly not a credible news source and I am embarrassed that they represent this city.
 
#7
Yes, it's true, Voisin and Breton have made the cases in favor of the new arena. However, I suspect that the large majority of those that pick up the paper to read sports are in favor of the measure. Not all, but most.

The news reporters and columnists have been unanimously opposed to it, and all but a few reporting pieces have had a negative "slant" to them (or trying to lead the reader by the nose to a desired conclusion), which is inappropriate unless they are opinion column writers.
Since when does a newspaper have to cater to the whims of its readers? It's supposed to connect with them, sure, or it risks losing its readership. But the fact that most of its readers support a new arena is irrelevant to the way it reports.

And I dont understand how the columnists are "unanimously opposed" when you admit that Voison and Breton have written pro-arena articles. Not to mention the news reporters. How do you know how Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Villenga feel about the issue? Their articles have seemed mostly impartial to me.
 
#8
Since when does a newspaper have to cater to the whims of its readers? It's supposed to connect with them, sure, or it risks losing its readership. But the fact that most of its readers support a new arena is irrelevant to the way it reports.
I never said the Bee needed to cater to its readers. I pointed out two sports columnists whose stuff has mostly supported the new arena. My guess was that most folks who pick up the sports page with interest (somewhere between 50.1% and whatever) are likely going to vote for this thing.

Could it be that the Bee allows these sports columnists to "preach to the choir"? I don't know. It's food for thought.

And I dont understand how the columnists are "unanimously opposed" when you admit that Voison and Breton have written pro-arena articles. Not to mention the news reporters. How do you know how Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Villenga feel about the issue? Their articles have seemed mostly impartial to me.
As you quoted from me in your post,

The news reporters and columnists have been unanimously opposed to it, and all but a few reporting pieces have had a negative "slant" to them (or trying to lead the reader by the nose to a desired conclusion), which is inappropriate unless they are opinion column writers.
I said "news reporters" and "all but a few".

It is clear that Hardy and Villenga either stand with the opposition or merely want to lead you by the nose to a negative conclusion and thus stir it up to sell papers. Of course, I have no idea where they really stand, and I don't really care. All I can do is judge them by what they write. And only a couple times do I recall reading their stories and felt that it was just a fair presentation of the facts, rather some tainting of the facts and begging a negative question.

Since we disagree on this point, can you refresh my memory perhaps with a link to a story they did that might lead the reader to a positive light about the new arena deal?
 
#9
It is clear that Hardy and Villenga either stand with the opposition or merely want to lead you by the nose to a negative conclusion and thus stir it up to sell papers. Of course, I have no idea where they really stand, and I don't really care. All I can do is judge them by what they write. And only a couple times do I recall reading their stories and felt that it was just a fair presentation of the facts, rather some tainting of the facts and begging a negative question.

Since we disagree on this point, can you refresh my memory perhaps with a link to a story they did that might lead the reader to a positive light about the new arena deal?
I don't think it's really as clear as you say. And fine, I'll do your homework for you:

This one may present the point of an opposition group, but gives Fong a chance to reply to nearly every point, and ends with Dickinson getting the last word. Does it lead to reader to a positive light? Should a news article lead a reader somewhere necessarily? Can a reader make their own judgments based on the facts presented by a reporter?

I can continue.

This one gives roughly equal space to both sides of the campaign, and actually goes farther by making Jones look bad for not letting The Bee see his volunteers in action.

This one features the pro-arena team more prominently, and again concludes with a pro-arena quote.

This one initially seems to give more weight to the anti-arena crowd, but comes around IMO and concludes without leaning toward either side.

I get your point now about the sports columnists being the only ones pro-arena and preaching to the choir, and have no qualms calling out the Bee on its factual errors and misrepresentations. The news coverage, however, has been largely impartial and balanced.
 
#10
LPKingsFan, thanx for doing my homework! ;)

In piece #1, the title is "Police union opposes arena" not "Sacramento Fire Chief supports arena" (since one of the opposing issues raised is public safety from this new development and provision of adequate fire protection for that area). There was not even the secondary banner to say that "SAC Fire Chief disagrees with police union". I would think that fire and police protection are of roughly equal concern.

Just as much could have been written about Cherry's position, with a mere blurb on the police stance, rather than what happened in reverse.

The piece transitions pretty quickly away from the title into Jones' anti-arena campaign (has nothing to do with police). Then it moves on to the issue of the possessory interest tax (again nothing to do with police) and raising the spectre of "lost revenue" as result of the JPA deal. To her credit, Hardy tried to find out more about PIT but could not get enough to draw a conclusion.

The main emphasis was to headline opposition to the deal. Will we ever see one that headlines some group's support for the deal from this writer?

In piece #2, this was one of my "all but a few" that was OK with me, mainly because it does not deal with any of the issues of the proposition. It just talks about setting up the campaigns for the two camps, and perhaps there are no negative connotations here because Hardy and her photographer did not get to see the ghost town that is the opposition headquarters.

In piece #3, you picked another one that does not deal with arena issues but discusses the gathering of the arena supporter PR team.

In piece #4, once again the title is tainted. Even going on the actual quotes in the pieces, there is no real city government official opposition, but the questions revolve around guaranteeing that the moneys flow where they are said to flow. They are not "skeptical" but rather primarily just want to see in writing how the money gets to their communities (and maybe how they can get more).

The Folsom mayor and entire Rancho Cordova council are solidly in favor. The Galt lady asked if we really needed a new arena, the EG guy wanted assurances his city gets its money...does that translate to "opposition" or "tough sell"? Hardly.

The CH mayor is crying because she manages a city that cannot expand and get as much as other County cities with room to grow. OK, maybe she will oppose getting extra millions in her city's coffers.

In the end, the reason "most" suburban politicos contacted either opposed or had questions is because that's the way Vellinga and Hardy wanted it. Is there any question why Folsom was the only city in which two folks were "contacted"? They needed something to counter what the city's #1 leader clearly stated in support, so they found one council member having to say she was on the fence because she has other more pressing things to deal with.

This was tainted.

In the end, why not a previous headline story on Rancho Cordova's governing body's support of the measure, and interview ALL the politicos on their feelings, not just one?

Why not a story on fire chief's position in this thing?

Why not a story on the many organizations that are already supporting this thing and why they have done so?

Why not a story on what actually happened in other cities that went down this same path 1, 2 or 3 years ago?

You get my drift.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#11
LPKingsFan, thanx for doing my homework! ;)

In piece #1, the title is "Police union opposes arena" not "Sacramento Fire Chief supports arena" (since one of the opposing issues raised is public safety from this new development and provision of adequate fire protection for that area). There was not even the secondary banner to say that "SAC Fire Chief disagrees with police union". I would think that fire and police protection are of roughly equal concern.

Just as much could have been written about Cherry's position, with a mere blurb on the police stance, rather than what happened in reverse.

The piece transitions pretty quickly away from the title into Jones' anti-arena campaign (has nothing to do with police). Then it moves on to the issue of the possessory interest tax (again nothing to do with police) and raising the spectre of "lost revenue" as result of the JPA deal. To her credit, Hardy tried to find out more about PIT but could not get enough to draw a conclusion.

The main emphasis was to headline opposition to the deal. Will we ever see one that headlines some group's support for the deal from this writer?

In piece #2, this was one of my "all but a few" that was OK with me, mainly because it does not deal with any of the issues of the proposition. It just talks about setting up the campaigns for the two camps, and perhaps there are no negative connotations here because Hardy and her photographer did not get to see the ghost town that is the opposition headquarters.

In piece #3, you picked another one that does not deal with arena issues but discusses the gathering of the arena supporter PR team.

In piece #4, once again the title is tainted. Even going on the actual quotes in the pieces, there is no real city government official opposition, but the questions revolve around guaranteeing that the moneys flow where they are said to flow. They are not "skeptical" but rather primarily just want to see in writing how the money gets to their communities (and maybe how they can get more).

The Folsom mayor and entire Rancho Cordova council are solidly in favor. The Galt lady asked if we really needed a new arena, the EG guy wanted assurances his city gets its money...does that translate to "opposition" or "tough sell"? Hardly.

The CH mayor is crying because she manages a city that cannot expand and get as much as other County cities with room to grow. OK, maybe she will oppose getting extra millions in her city's coffers.

In the end, the reason "most" suburban politicos contacted either opposed or had questions is because that's the way Vellinga and Hardy wanted it. Is there any question why Folsom was the only city in which two folks were "contacted"? They needed something to counter what the city's #1 leader clearly stated in support, so they found one council member having to say she was on the fence because she has other more pressing things to deal with.

This was tainted.

In the end, why not a previous headline story on Rancho Cordova's governing body's support of the measure, and interview ALL the politicos on their feelings, not just one?

Why not a story on fire chief's position in this thing?

Why not a story on the many organizations that are already supporting this thing and why they have done so?

Why not a story on what actually happened in other cities that went down this same path 1, 2 or 3 years ago?

You get my drift.
Well put. I agree as well.
 
#12
I get your issues with #4, but as for headlines, those are usually entirely the editor's discrecion, so aren't relevant to whether the news reporters have an agenda or not.

I'm curious as to the story assignments as well. This is obviously Hardy's beat, and she likely generates her own story ideas to a large extent. But the final call I bet is with the news editor, or editors, or whoever's running this damn thing.

It's clear to me that the highest of the higher ups at the Bee support the arena deal, and I'm not convinced there's any agenda from the news supporters. The problem seems to lie with the columnists and the middle editors, then.
 
#13
They obviously told Graswich to can his rhetoric unless he has something new to say. He's been the biggest offender in that sense. In the last ten days his articles suddenly stopped with Maloof bashing. Before that he had 9 articles out of 12 were swipes at them.
 
#14
Maybe so, but if that indeed happened, the editor was about 7 or 8 pieces too late of cutting off RE's tired, lame, repetitive mantra.

Better late than never, I suppose.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#15
Sorry, but I don't think Graswich has been muzzled. I think he's probably just resting up a bit. If TPTB were going to do something about him, they would have done it quite some time ago...