(see I told you guys that the Bee told RE to shut the heck up)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/columns/acuna/
Public Editor: Arena backers put Bee's columnists in spotlight
The principal backers of a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings believe several of The Bee's columnists have been overly negative about the plan and recently complained to the paper's publisher.
In last week's column I explored their complaint and the reaction to it by the publisher, Janis Besler Heaphy, and the executive editor, Rick Rodriguez.
This week, it's the columnists' turn to weigh in and discuss how they see their role and whether they feel any pressure to moderate their views.
The columnist most vehemently opposed to the arena deal is three-times-a-week Metro columnist R.E. Graswich, a writer who in a long career at the paper was once the Kings beat writer.
In his short-item column he often writes about local politics and civic leaders, and, ironically, he regularly appears as a guest on local radio station KHTK 1140, which broadcasts Kings' games.
Gregarious, opinionated and energetic, Graswich delivers his point of view with all the subtlety of a sharp finger poking you in the chest.
He says that given his experience in sports and local politics, the arena issue "is in my strike zone." He has written about the arena proposal a dozen times since late July, when it was unveiled.
At one point he mentioned the plan in seven straight columns, mostly quoting others saying it's a bad deal. It was partly this onslaught of critical columns that frustrated arena backers.
Graswich says reader response to his columns has far surpassed that for any other subject he has written about. "I'm not going to force an issue if people don't want it ... (but) when I strike a nerve, I go."
When Rodriguez called a meeting a few weeks ago cautioning the paper's columnists not to simply repeat themselves again and again, most people at the meeting say they felt it was mainly directed at Graswich.
Several days later, Graswich alone had another meeting with three other top editors, where the desire to spread out his anti-arena commentary and avoid repetition were raised anew.
"I think the paper is very nervous about this," said Graswich, adding that "I'm the type to kick in the door and plow right in. I need an editor who says you've gone too far; let's pull back the throttle. I respect that and I understand their (editors') position."
He said he intends to still write about the arena but has agreed to what he calls "a quota" of commenting on it only once every six columns instead of hammering away more often.
Graswich's antithesis as a columnist is Daniel Weintraub, whom one former colleague dubbed "Spock" for his penchant to rationally analyze and explain complicated government issues, even when doing so conflicts with his personal interest, as it may with the arena.
He writes for the editorial pages, which is separate from the newsroom. He reports to David Holwerk, editor of the editorial pages, not to Rodriguez.
Weintraub has written five columns about the arena proposal since it surfaced, most of them raising questions about various aspects of the deal. His columns also raised the ire of the arena's supporters.
"My role is to dissect public policy issues," Weintraub said, describing reader interest in the new arena as "extremely high."
"Clearly my columns have been skeptical of the deal, but I'm also a Kings fan and lover of downtowns and downtowns with sports venues in them," he said. "For all kinds of personal reasons I should be for the deal, but that's not going to stop me from looking at it with a critical eye."
He said he hasn't felt any pressure from editors about what to write.
"As far as the backers, they should have spent more time communicating with the public and less time communicating with the publisher," Weintraub said. "They left a huge vacuum of information for us and talk radio to fill. They should have come out of the gate with a big campaign right from the beginning."
Dan Walters is the paper's long-time Capitol columnist, specializing in state politics and government. He wrote three columns about the arena, in part critically examining arena issues that may have statewide reach.
"I have no interest per se getting into the arena debate," he said, noting that pro-arena leaders Art Savage, Rob Fong and Doug Elmets visited him last Wednesday to talk about the proposal. "I told them I was not necessarily going to write about it again."
Walters said Rodriguez's admonition about the columnists' being repetitive raised "a valid point."
"We shouldn't be writing about it just to be writing about it," said Walters, adding that columnists should bring something "different and unique" each time they write about a subject.
The only columnist so far who is unabashedly in favor of the arena proposal is veteran sports columnist Ailene Voisin. She has been consistent in her stance for a new facility, arguing for it long before the current deal was announced.
Arco Arena, where the Kings play, is too old, too small and structurally poor, she says. But mainly, she contends the Kings are important to the community and that a new arena would bring life and vibrancy to downtown.
"I think that first and foremost my duty is to report and inform the public about the arena situation, not only here but throughout the United States," Voisin said. "Sacramento can get a little myopic about this."
Voisin, who plans to write about the arena again once the Monarchs season is finished, believes Kings' owners Joe and Gavin Maloof have been the subject of "personal attacks" and "cheap shots" by some of the paper's columnists.
"That gives the perception that The Bee is anti-arena," she said.
Sports columnist Marcos Bretón has yet to take a stand. "I'm probably leaning toward it but I haven't made up my mind," he said. "When I do, I will write about it and tell you why."
"My role as a columnist is to be interesting and entertaining. This a great issue to write about," he said, noting he hasn't felt any management pressure. "The stakes are high because the interest is so high."
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, 95852, by e-mail at publiceditor@sacbee.com, or call directly at (916) 321-1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/columns/acuna/
Public Editor: Arena backers put Bee's columnists in spotlight
The principal backers of a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings believe several of The Bee's columnists have been overly negative about the plan and recently complained to the paper's publisher.
In last week's column I explored their complaint and the reaction to it by the publisher, Janis Besler Heaphy, and the executive editor, Rick Rodriguez.
This week, it's the columnists' turn to weigh in and discuss how they see their role and whether they feel any pressure to moderate their views.
The columnist most vehemently opposed to the arena deal is three-times-a-week Metro columnist R.E. Graswich, a writer who in a long career at the paper was once the Kings beat writer.
In his short-item column he often writes about local politics and civic leaders, and, ironically, he regularly appears as a guest on local radio station KHTK 1140, which broadcasts Kings' games.
Gregarious, opinionated and energetic, Graswich delivers his point of view with all the subtlety of a sharp finger poking you in the chest.
He says that given his experience in sports and local politics, the arena issue "is in my strike zone." He has written about the arena proposal a dozen times since late July, when it was unveiled.
At one point he mentioned the plan in seven straight columns, mostly quoting others saying it's a bad deal. It was partly this onslaught of critical columns that frustrated arena backers.
Graswich says reader response to his columns has far surpassed that for any other subject he has written about. "I'm not going to force an issue if people don't want it ... (but) when I strike a nerve, I go."
When Rodriguez called a meeting a few weeks ago cautioning the paper's columnists not to simply repeat themselves again and again, most people at the meeting say they felt it was mainly directed at Graswich.
Several days later, Graswich alone had another meeting with three other top editors, where the desire to spread out his anti-arena commentary and avoid repetition were raised anew.
"I think the paper is very nervous about this," said Graswich, adding that "I'm the type to kick in the door and plow right in. I need an editor who says you've gone too far; let's pull back the throttle. I respect that and I understand their (editors') position."
He said he intends to still write about the arena but has agreed to what he calls "a quota" of commenting on it only once every six columns instead of hammering away more often.
Graswich's antithesis as a columnist is Daniel Weintraub, whom one former colleague dubbed "Spock" for his penchant to rationally analyze and explain complicated government issues, even when doing so conflicts with his personal interest, as it may with the arena.
He writes for the editorial pages, which is separate from the newsroom. He reports to David Holwerk, editor of the editorial pages, not to Rodriguez.
Weintraub has written five columns about the arena proposal since it surfaced, most of them raising questions about various aspects of the deal. His columns also raised the ire of the arena's supporters.
"My role is to dissect public policy issues," Weintraub said, describing reader interest in the new arena as "extremely high."
"Clearly my columns have been skeptical of the deal, but I'm also a Kings fan and lover of downtowns and downtowns with sports venues in them," he said. "For all kinds of personal reasons I should be for the deal, but that's not going to stop me from looking at it with a critical eye."
He said he hasn't felt any pressure from editors about what to write.
"As far as the backers, they should have spent more time communicating with the public and less time communicating with the publisher," Weintraub said. "They left a huge vacuum of information for us and talk radio to fill. They should have come out of the gate with a big campaign right from the beginning."
Dan Walters is the paper's long-time Capitol columnist, specializing in state politics and government. He wrote three columns about the arena, in part critically examining arena issues that may have statewide reach.
"I have no interest per se getting into the arena debate," he said, noting that pro-arena leaders Art Savage, Rob Fong and Doug Elmets visited him last Wednesday to talk about the proposal. "I told them I was not necessarily going to write about it again."
Walters said Rodriguez's admonition about the columnists' being repetitive raised "a valid point."
"We shouldn't be writing about it just to be writing about it," said Walters, adding that columnists should bring something "different and unique" each time they write about a subject.
The only columnist so far who is unabashedly in favor of the arena proposal is veteran sports columnist Ailene Voisin. She has been consistent in her stance for a new facility, arguing for it long before the current deal was announced.
Arco Arena, where the Kings play, is too old, too small and structurally poor, she says. But mainly, she contends the Kings are important to the community and that a new arena would bring life and vibrancy to downtown.
"I think that first and foremost my duty is to report and inform the public about the arena situation, not only here but throughout the United States," Voisin said. "Sacramento can get a little myopic about this."
Voisin, who plans to write about the arena again once the Monarchs season is finished, believes Kings' owners Joe and Gavin Maloof have been the subject of "personal attacks" and "cheap shots" by some of the paper's columnists.
"That gives the perception that The Bee is anti-arena," she said.
Sports columnist Marcos Bretón has yet to take a stand. "I'm probably leaning toward it but I haven't made up my mind," he said. "When I do, I will write about it and tell you why."
"My role as a columnist is to be interesting and entertaining. This a great issue to write about," he said, noting he hasn't felt any management pressure. "The stakes are high because the interest is so high."
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, 95852, by e-mail at publiceditor@sacbee.com, or call directly at (916) 321-1250.
Last edited by a moderator:
