Reporting accurately is a difficult, but not impossible job. And an independent newspaper with a commitment to ferreting out the facts about major community issues and reporting them fairly, honestly and, when need be, fearlessly, is an asset to any city that should be highly prized. It is an asset that, sadly, Ogden seems just now not to possess.
Being as I am a faithful subscriber to the SE and a daily reader, I say this with some sadness. There is much evidence that it is true, and this morning's paper contains two good examples.
First, there is Ms.Rebecca Palmer's story on the recent Mt. Ogden Community meetings the Planning commission held at Wasatch Elementary as the first step towards drawing up a Mt. Ogden Community Plan. It is a prime example of the kind of "he said/she said" reporting to which the SE is apparently [and sadly] addicted.
He said/she said reporting works like this: say there is a public meeting held regarding some controversial project. Nine people speak against the proposal and one speaks in favor. If you have the subsequent story saying "Residents divide on plan" and quoting the one speaker who spoke for it and one of the nine who spoke against, and mentioning nowhere that public comment was overwhelmingly against the proposal, you have the SE "he said/she said" style of reporting in a nut shell.
Ms. Palmer's story is a prime example. I attended the second night of the Mt. Ogden community meeting, both the general session and three of the four break out sessions. Comments from residents that dealt in any way with the Peterson proposal or its consequences ran at least nine to one against the proposal. In the three breakout sessions I took part in, no one spoke in favor of the Peterson proposals. No one. All who did speak to it, spoke against.
I did not attend the Tuesday meeting, but I've spoken to several people who did, and they report as well that those who spoke about the proposal and its consequences far outnumbered the few who spoke in favor.
And how did the SE report this? This way:
"I propose selling the golf course," said Ken Burton, a businessman who has lived in the Mount Ogden neighborhood for more than 50 years. "Our tax base in Ogden is eroding ... I just think we need to increase the tax base."The first person actually quoted favored the Peterson proposal. Then one quoted in opposition. Any indication at all in the story that the overwhelming majority of comments was opposed? No. One quote for, one against. I have no doubt that Ms. Palmer considers this "balanced reporting." It is not. It is biased reporting. It gives the impression that commentary at the meeting on the issue being discussed was fairly evenly divided. It was not. But you won't learn that from the SE story.
Other residents said they wanted to keep the neighborhood just as it is now.
"As far as what I want to see in 20 years, I've lived here for 20 years," said neighborhood resident Chris Bentley. "I run these trails every morning ... I would like to see it stay pretty much the same."
The SE has another story about the gondola/Peterson proposal today as well, one by Mr. Scott Schwebke. But strangely enough, in that story, the "he said/she said" approach Ms. Palmer so sadly illustrated in her story is dropped in favor of reporting only the Mayor's version of what happened and why.
The story is headlined Godfrey Talks With UTA About Gondola. That, of course, is not the story, as the first paragraph makes clear: "OGDEN Mayor Matthew Godfrey says he has dropped a request for $8 million from the Utah Transit Authority to help fund a gondola system that would extend from downtown to Weber State University." The lead at least got it right: the Mayor has dropped his attempts to get UTA to kick in $8 million of public transit funds to help build the downtown leg of the gondola.
An interesting story, to be sure. Why, a reader might wonder, did he drop his attempt to get UTA to contribute millions? The story goes on to discuss a letter sent by Mr. John Inglish, UTA General Manager, to Mayor Godfrey in April, responding to his request. Here's what(in part) the letter said:
So far so good. Then the story quotes Mayor Godfrey, explaining why he dropped the request for UTA money:Inglish said in the letter that before he could make a recommendation to the trustees he would have to be assured the gondola funds would be used for public transportation.
There would also have to be a consensus among local elected officials that the gondola project should be funded with public transit money that accrues to Weber County, Inglish stated.
In addition, an analysis of potential risks associated with the project must also be completed, he said.
Some potential risks include construction cost overruns, insufficient operating revenue, the failure of private development to occur, difficulty in obtaining environmental permits, and public opposition, Inglish said. Other possible difficulties may include gaining permission from the Utah Department of Transportation to use Harrison Boulevard as a route for the gondola, Weber State University's acceptance of a lift station on campus, and acquisition of right-of-way easements on federal property.
OK, fair enough. The Mayor is certainly entitled to have the paper report his explanation. However, might there be another explanation of his action? There are people in Ogden who believe the Peterson proposal and gondola projects are unwise. One might think the SE, which seems to be so enamored of the "he said/she said" style of reporting would interview some of them to see if, perhaps, there was another explanation for the Mayor's dropping his pitch for UTA money.Godfrey said the $8 million originally requested from UTA is no longer needed, due to a proposal from developer Chris Peterson that would provide sufficient capital for the project.
Peterson proposes to buy Mount Ogden Golf Course from the city, redesign it, purchase about 150 adjoining acres from Weber State University and put upscale homes on some of the combined land.
Peterson also wants to purchase some additional city property adjoining the golf course and proposes to extend the gondola from Weber State University to his proposed resort at Malan's Basin and possibly farther up Mount Ogden.
The sale of Mount Ogden Golf Course and the adjoining property would be used by the city to fund its leg of the gondola, Godfrey said.
Turns out, there is. It seems [as Mr. Schwebke reported] that the UTA would require of the Mayor and Mr. Peterson precisely the kind of feasibility studies that any prudent commercial lender [like a bank or pension fund] would require before underwriting a project of this magnitude. Mr. Inglish seems to be a prudent manager of his agency's resources. Could it be that neither the Mayor nor Mr. Peterson can offer any evidence suggesting that the gondola/Malan's Basin developments are economically feasible, that they have a reasonable [much less good] chance of succeeding? Could it be that he withdrew his request for UTA money for that reason? Might it have been prudent of the SE to have interviewed someone with a different view than the Mayor on this for the story? Apparently, the SE thought not.
For this story, the SE seems to have suspended the "he said/she said" style so prominent in so many of its other gondola stories. As I said, it's not a particularly good style of reporting anyway, but if the SE insists on following it, it should do so consistently, and not apply it to the Mt. Ogden Community meetings story in such a way as to minimize the overwhelming majority of views opposing the Peterson development expressed there, and then turn around and permit Mayor Godfrey's self-serving explanation of his dropping the request to UTA for funds to stand un-challenged in that story. I don't think I'm the only one who suspects a double standard is at work here. And, on the evidence, I don't think that suspicion is wholly unfounded.
For example, a reporter interested in actually doing some digging might have asked himself this: The Mayor says he dropped the request because the Peterson proposal made it unnecessary. Well, when was it that the Mayor made his pitch to UTA? What date? [The story doesn't say.] And when did Mr. Peterson make his proposal to buy Mt. Ogden park lands so the city could use the money to build the gondola? Did the Mayor perchance make his pitch to UTA after Mr. Peterson made his proposal [which if so would render the Mayor's explanation of why he dropped the proposal nonsensical].
I don't know the answer to that question. But having read the SE story, I should know the answer. Maybe the answer will be consistent with the Mayor's explanation of his actions. Maybe it won't. The point is, the SE seems not to have asked.
The kind of "he said/she said" journalism in the Palmer story this morning, and the kind of non-probing "accept the statement unchecked" journalism in the Schwebke story this morning are not what make for great reporting and great city newspapers.
Or even good ones.
