Grant's Perspective: Bee overly negative

[NoBonus]

I was listening to Grant yesterday and he and Mike Lam both agreed that the Sac Bee is offering a completely one-sided, biased, and negative view of the arena deal. They felt the mix in that paper was about 20% positive and 80% negative. What is your take?

 

[Warhawk]

I agree, but there is no other legitimite newspaper option in the Sacramento.

 

[NoBonus]

I agree, but there is no other legitimite newspaper option in the Sacramento.

Maybe it is time for a change...

 

[JB_kings]

Grant is known to hype, but in this case he's right on the money. In my email exchanges with Dan Weintraub, I got the feeling even he is ultimately for the deal after reading these comments:

In fact, I'm pretty sure the deal is in my own personal interests:

--I am a huge Kings fan, so I would get to root for them some more.
--I love vibrant downtowns, so I would get to enjoy that.
--I live near downtown, so my property values would probably increase if the arena helped make the downtown more successful.
--My employer benefits because people buy the paper to read about the Kings.

So I'm kind of scratching my head over what looks like a coordinated attack by the Bee columnists on the deal and the Kings owners. It doesn't seem to benefit the Bee and at least Dan does admit it. Even if he has a fantasy view of how he would prefer the deal to be structured.

 

[1kingzfan]

Thanx for sharing, JB.

Weintraub's true feelings are perplexing, when placed opposite what he has been writing.

 

[NewMonkey]

Next: The Bee says that positive/negative mix for Grant and Mike Lamb is 80/20! Grant's not exactly an unbiased observer. That being said, I'd like to see publish and article extolling the virtues of a new arena. Just because.

 

[LPKingsFan]

This about the deal, not the arena. But now that the deal is what we have, I think you'll see more support the closer we get to November. Voison's pretty adamant in support, and I think some of the business writers will come around.

I don't get where the whole conspiracy theory is coming from, because it's correct that the Bee stands to lose a whole lot if the deal fails and the Kings leave. They have a huge advertising/promotional relationship with the Kings, and their sports content would be decimated should the team pack up and hit the road.

I, in fact, agree that the deal is far from ideal, and hasn't been presented in a truly factual manner. I think the Bee is trying to expose that. But I feel that in the end, no matter what the deal is, the Kings need to stay and thus I'll vote for it. I think the Bee will come around as well.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Oh, I forgot to mention. Except for Graswich. He's a bum.

 

[Vitamin K]

The Sacramento Bee has always been a terrible newspaper, but when you are the only game in town, you can get away with pretty much anything. I miss the days of the Sacramento Union. Luckily there are other things besides the newspaper that influence voters, (God bless the internet) so hopefully the Bee's biased view won't sway voters in the wrong direction, they will be able to think for themselves and realize what a economic catalyst the arena will provide, not to mention the sense of community pride the Kings bring to the region.

 

[ShatteredVision]

Paper media generally doesn't stand a chance against TV Media...