Accountability 102 (Part III):Retrospective on Finger Lakes Times 305 Coverage

This is the last installment in a series of posts aimed at exploring the way in which media coverage of a public issue shapes decision-making, and the perception of decision-making, in government. We have used the 305 Main Street issue as a ‘case study’ which reveals how poor coverage can actually lead to bad decisions. In our view, the 305 issue could have been resolved-- long time ago, with far less controversy-- had there been full public disclosure by Council, and independent, objective reporting by the local paper.

In particular, the intentions of the various parties and the costs associated with the various options for the building were not given adequate coverage. If the paper had pursued even somewhat more thorough explanations of Council actions in taking on such a potentially costly project, the public might have become aware of the potential liability much sooner. This could have resulted in a creative solution presenting itself earlier. Now, it’s long after the fact and the public feels ripped off and let down by local government.

Furthermore, in not disclosing the preference the paper’s publisher (and editorial board member) Phil Beckley had for demolition of the property, the public would also remain unaware that there was more information on 305 to be found elsewhere. As a result, the paper ran only what Council said, and then Council repeated what the paper ran, in a self-fulfilling manner. That’s a real problem when what’s being said and what’s being printed are not the whole story!

Since Part 1 and Part 2 focused on recent coverage of the issue, we now take you back to the archives and look at stories printed in the paper shortly after the acquisition of the property and the performing arts center plans were made public. All of the articles referenced are available here:

In a March 17, 2005 article, former City Councilor Paul Schroeder characterized the City Council vote to approve the City's acquisition of the former gas station at 305 Main Street, "a favor to the arts council." However, the extent and underlying significance of that ‘favor’ was not discussed. The Times article gave the public the 'who' and the 'what' of the story, but not the 'when,' 'where,' 'how,' and 'why.' No mention was made of the fact that the City went out of its way to take ownership of a potentially contaminated site simply because the Arts Council requested it.

A few weeks later (April 8, 2005), the Finger Lakes Times returned to the 305 story and reported that the arts group had reduced its purchase offer price from $200,000 to $50,000, because "it could be some time before the project [performing arts center] could actually move forward." The Finger Lakes Times did not mention the several additional offers that others made to purchase the building and return it to the City tax rolls.

On June 20, 2005, the Finger Lakes Times reported on the costs of stabilization and cleanup of 305 versus the costs of demolition, as presented at a city council meeting. "According to an April 29 report, it would cost $190,000 to $235,000 to clean up the site and keep the building; or $120,000 to $160,000 to demolish it." However, once it was learned that the City was eligible for over $200,000 in federal funds to stabilize and clean up the building, the local paper ran an editorial stating that the cost was closer to $600,000, although no data was presented to support that claim.

On August 2, 2005, the Finger Lakes Times revealed that the arts council was unable to repay City loans for improvements to the Smith Opera House and negotiations were under way for a bail out repayment plan of only 50 cents on the dollar. "The regional arts council needed to make the adjustment 'in an attempt to get our debt down. There was no way we could make good on the loan,' said Carl Fribolin."

Ten days later, the paper reported "During an executive session Wednesday night, City Councilors met with the Smith’s treasurer Bob Schick and Carl Fribolin, vice president of its board of directors, to discuss terms of the arts council’s newest proposal and how the organization plans to develop the site." Not only did the newspaper not challenge this closed-door discussion (plans to develop a city-owned site are only a legitimate grounds for executive session if the information would substantially negatively impact the value of the land). But the paper also did not address the contradiction between the group’s inability to repay the full amount to the Revolving Loan fund, but ability to purchase a deteriorating building for a 'cultural center.'

When Capraro came on Council in December 2005, he was told at his orientation by then City Manager Rich Rising that it was “council policy” to preserve 305. Within six months, that policy changed, without explanation, until now.

Accountability 102 (Part II): Who's Pressing the Press?

A free press and democracy go hand-in-hand. That’s why the framers of the U.S. Constitution included freedom of the press at the very top of our Bill of Rights. It’s no different at the local level. In Geneva, the Finger Lakes Times (FLT) plays a vital role in everyday political life. Most of what most people know about City government comes from “the paper.” For that reason, accountability matters. The FLT has an awesome responsibility to get things right, for the sake of good government.

Unfortunately, limitations in space, staff, and ideology prevent the FLT from giving its readers complete and objective coverage of what goes on in the City. FLT headlines (and photo captions, as pointed out in a recent letter to the editor) are not only often sensational, but downright misleading in so far as they do not accurately reflect the content of the story or picture they accompany. Getting the story ‘right’ means that the content must be accurate and complete. In our opinion, the FLT seldom gets the story right, and even their editorial slant is sometimes disconnected from the facts as presented in their own paper. The need for a fact-based point of view on local government, and a fact-based point of view on the local media’s failure to present a fact-based point of view, is the main reason for launching this blog.

Granted, managing editor Anne Schuhle has a tough job. By her own admission, she is frequently overwhelmed by a never ending series of decisions and challenges that come with running a small-town, monopolistic newspaper. That’s the basis of her column in the Sunday paper, From Where I Sit, which features anecdotes about keeping readers happy, balancing work and family, keeping up with changing technology, and the like. Between those realities and the advertising pressures in a small market (as discussed in our most recent interview with Ted Baker), the world of the FLT editorial board is a highly pragmatic one.

At www.nostringsgeneva.com we’ve had our share of run-ins with the paper. They will occasionally run a story on the blog, usually quoting someone who says the blog contains false information. Yet never has anyone at the paper or anyone quoted given any evidence to substantiate such claims. No one-- not a reporter, not an editor-- not even anyone quoted, ever brought forward a valid example of a false statement or something presented as fact in the blog that was not actually true. Shouldn’t follow-up questions and independent fact-checking be the rule and not the exception? Instead, reporters are allowed to repeat, uncritically, what critics have said about the blog, leaving the impression that what had been said was true.

Looking at the local paper in a broader perspective, consider this recent piece in USA Today: ( click here for article). It describes the role of the media (newspapers, in particular) as the “fourth branch of government.” Newspapers must first get the facts straight and then provide a larger context for their readers: “Accuracy, fairness and timeliness are the most important aspects of sound, credible journalism. Journalists are fact finders. They need to get the facts that make a story relevant and interesting to readers. Having said that, a story must also be compelling. It must let readers know why this event is important to them now.”

With regard to the gas station debate, we believe the Finger Lakes Times failed on all three counts. Every substantive article on the topic appeared after a vote was already taken. This leaves residents reacting to decisions, rather than really providing them the tools to be full participants in the process. As shown in Part I, the articles have not been accurate and in the past we believe that was due to a fundamental unfairness in the coverage. After all, the publisher and member of the editorial board was, himself, the biggest proponent of demolition (and due to the closed-door discussions about the topic, very few members of the public would have known that at the time). So, while the FLT requires people who write letters to the editor to disclose any affiliations that might bear on the opinion expressed, the same standard did not hold in their own work.

In a previous post, we stated that a ‘he said/she said’ approach to reporting is not in the public interest. That’s because there’s a difference between being a reporter and being a journalist. Anyone can report what they heard. For instance, take kids on the playground. Johnny tells Jill that school is cancelled on Friday. Jill doesn’t remember hearing that, but she tells Kim. Jill has reported what Johnny said. But if Jill were a journalist, she might have asked the teacher (an presumed authority) if what Johnny said was true. Then, she could tell Kim “Johnny said there’s no school on Friday, but I checked with Mrs. Smith and it's not true,” that’s journalism!

But this is not playground talk, it’s public policy and more journalism is needed. It is not disrespectful, distrusting, or in any way wrong to dig a little deeper and fact-check. It’s the old adage, “trust, but verify.” In the case of Tuesday night’s meeting, we believe an honest mistake was made, but the pattern of reporting, and lack of journalism on this issue in general is simply not acceptable.

Stay tuned for our fact-based point of view on what happened at the meetings!

Accountability 102 (Part I): Maybe No News is Good News When It Comes to the Local Paper

Instead of helping the public sort out an admittedly complex set of issues, including environmental awareness, historic preservation, and economic development, our local paper has been adding to the confusion surrounding the “305” debate. Inaccurate reporting, sloppy editing, and an editorial bias about the matter has done the public a great disservice. We post a lot about accountability in government and part and parcel of that is having an accurate and accountable press.

Last Wednesday, the paper ran a story on a public hearing on 305. The hearing was held because federal law requires such a hearing before the City draws down any federal grants for the environmental clean up of the site with a “demolition” approach. “Section 106” of the National Historic Preservation Act says the City must demonstrate that they have created a plan with the least “adverse impact” on the historical properties on or surrounding the site. The City must also demonstrate they have considered all feasible alternatives to demolition. (For complete provisions of the act, click here).

As a consequence, the consultants hired by the City-- Dovetail Consulting and Brownfield Redevelopment Solutions, Inc.-- conducted a public hearing on 305 Main Street. Over 40 people attended the hearing. It was not a City Council meeting and the City Council was not conducting business. At one point during the hearing, Mayor Einstein himself stated clearly to the public that the gathering was not a Council meeting. He was emphatic that no Council business would or could be transacted that night.

True, five members of Council were present for most of the hearing (Mayor Einstein and Councilors O’Malley, Augustine, Valentino, Hagerman, with Councilor D’Amico making a brief appearance). But the consultants running the meeting were quick to point out that the purpose of the meeting was not to revisit the previous Council’s vote to demolish the building. The purpose, they declared, was to look at how to “mitigate” the adverse impact of demolition.

Next day in the paper, to our great surprise, we read that the hearing was a “special City Council session” and that its purpose was for “the City Council to reconsider its 2007 vote to demolish.” The headline and the story’s lead sentence portrayed the whole event as “deja vu.” On the contrary, Council made its decision two years ago. Grant givers were now trying to determine if that decision can be carried out with federal tax dollars.

The local paper’s story contains several other inaccuracies regarding both the scope and the content of the meeting. While we’ve expressed our ongoing concerns about that, in today’s post we want to express our grave concern about the role of the local paper in shaping, or mis-shaping, public policy in the City. What they say does matter. And the latest round of articles about the gas station dramatizes the problem.

First of all, how could the paper be so far off on the facts? In fairness to the reporter assigned to cover the hearing, he’s new on the beat and was not the reporter who has covered the 305 story over the past few years. It’s hard to fault him for making mistakes in covering such a detailed and technical set of arguments, especially when everything he writes is reviewed, edited, and approved by the paper’s editorial staff. Regardless of who covered the event and drafted the story, it is up to the editors to make sure reporting is accurate, all facts are checked, and the news, including the headline and opening ‘hook’ is free of bias.

Ideological bias is a special, more serious case of inaccuracy in reporting. In our point of view, at every step of the way in the 305 fiasco, the Finger Lakes Times has conveyed the idea that saving the building is ‘doing nothing’ about it, as if anyone who wants to save the building simply wants to keep an old, abandoned building just sitting there for the heck of it. So, too, the paper has never critically examined the dollar amounts used to justify the argument that it is cheaper to demolish the building than to clean it up. They just keep re-printing numbers given to them by city officials. Their presentation of the hearing is the latest installment of their bias, leaving the suggestion that a special Council meeting was called to put 305 up for grabs, with certain members of Council seeking a flip-flop on the vote to demolish.

That’s been since former Finger Lakes Times publisher Phil Beckley himself changed his mind about 305. As we’ve previously posted, Beckley was a key originator of the idea to preserve 305. He and his group later flip-flopped and sought the demolition of 305 at all costs, and now demolition is a good idea in the eyes of the paper.

All of this was brought to the editorial board’s attention through letters and direct contact, but no meaningful follow up was undertaken. In fact, the newspaper took the misinformation a step further by composing an ‘our opinion’ piece that took the city’s figures and ran straight to the wrecking ball, no questions asked.

The paper has yet to hold the City Council accountable for bad decision-making regarding 305.

The City had undertaken a fundamentally flawed process, and in clear violation of the open meetings laws. The proposal to acquire the building for a performing arts center, for example, was presented to Council in Executive Session--not a legitimate topic for such sessions. The former City Manager then sought consensus on a variety of issues related to acquiring and transferring the building via e-mail, which, again, is not playing by the rules.

What did come out at the hearing on 305, and what went unreported by the Finger Lakes Times, was confirmation of how the City acquired 305. Former Councilor Espenscheid and Carl Fribolin, two key players in that development, were on hand at the hearing to refresh the public’s memory, confirming the www.nostringsgeneva.com account. Part III of this post will discuss in more detail what transpired at the hearing, but first stay tuned to Part II in which we discuss the importance of good journalism to good government.