This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

surprise! times headline ridiculously biased! — Brooklynian

surprise! times headline ridiculously biased!

crustythor
crustythor
edited November -1 in Prospect Heights
the article itself isn't terrible, at least in the second page, but the blurb and headline would lead you to believe that ratner is down in the trenches, digging up community support with nothing but goodwill and elbow grease:

To Build Arena in Brooklyn, Developer First Builds Bridges
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Community support of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards development plan has fueled the project's slow but steady march forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/nyregion/14yards.html

Comments

  • qtrain
    qtrain
    A step in the right direction (remember "building trades unions and residents of the poorer neighborhoods and housing projects near the proposed arena site have been supportive of the plan", exactly one month ago?), but hardly a fair representation. The article is mostly undigested FCR PR. Lazy.

    Also, Jay-Z get hit with a donut box coming up in Prospect Heights, for real. I don't play.
  • anonymous
    anonymous
    the headline is pathetic. but at least clearly shows where the Times' editors stand.

    my favorite unquestioned quote comes from Ratner PR Flack Joey DePlasco:
    "Forest City Ratner Company believes firmly that supporting nonprofits and community groups, and working with them to identify and address needs, is at the foundation of what they do. It's that simple."


    or how about this piece of reporting:
    "Top executives of Forest City Ratner, Mr. Ratner's company, held dozens of meetings with residents."
    Oh yeah? Must have missed those, the one's I did witness involved a lot of angry residents yelling at Jim Stuckey.

    and of course the Time's buries the lead, the lead is that BUILD which two weeks ago said Ratner doesn't pay their salaries, is no "revising their account" and saying they are getting salaries from Ratner.

    and of course you have a massive PR Feedback Loop when all comments from the project proponents come from Ratner PR Flacks or BUILD PR Flacks paid for by Ratner.

    also Jay-Z is NOT a project supporter, he is a projec INVESTOR. a rapper trotted out to sell theh project as having Black ownership, when in reality he owns less thann 1% of the Nets.

    more commentary on the Times' "reporting" here:

    http://www.observer.com/therealestate/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/nyregion/14yards.html
    http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2005/10/to_build_arena.html

    the only bridge Ratner has built is the imaginary one he's trying to sell us.
  • qtrain
    qtrain
    pacific wrote: also Jay-Z is NOT a project supporter, he is a projec INVESTOR. a rapper trotted out to sell theh project as having Black ownership, when in reality he owns less thann 1% of the Nets.
    Wait, so I did this for nothing?

    image
  • captain m
    captain m
    "James Caldwell, has said that Mr. Ratner was 'truly sent by God.'"

    I wonder if when he said that, everyone took a step back waiting for lightning to strike Caldwell.
  • jamzer
    jamzer
    Isn't that what everyone was complaining about? That Ratner did not reach out to the community? This article makes it sound like he has. Is is all lies?
  • anonymous
    anonymous
    Jamzer wrote: Isn't that what everyone was complaining about? That Ratner did not reach out to the community? This article makes it sound like he has. Is is all lies?

    pretty much. that and bad reporting.
  • boaty
    boaty
    Jamzer wrote: Isn't that what everyone was complaining about? That Ratner did not reach out to the community? This article makes it sound like he has. Is is all lies?
    Actually, the aricle would be technically correct, in that he likely did reach out to the community via our community board - which seems to be not doing an adequately indepedent job of representing the community.
  • jml
    jml
    To my knowledge, since this project was announced two years ago, Forest City Ratner has been present at TWO public meetings. One was held in the winter of 2004 by the Park Slope Civic Council; the other was a joint community board meeting at NY Tech in Downtown Brooklyn. FCR has turned down repeated requests by community groups in Prospect Heights, Fort Greene and Boerum Hill to present in a public forum.

    The Times states that a FCRC spokesperson showed them a list of meetings that FCRC had attended. If that is the case, it's likely that these were private meetings with community groups that are already in support of the project. Was this list not fact-checked by reporters? It appears they took FCRC info at face value.

    The thing that amazes me about this article on Ratner's outreach is that it came out a week after it was announced that the developer had reneged on providing a roof top skating rink/running track for public use.
  • anonymous
    anonymous

    Subject: you are correct

    jml, you are absolutely correct. those are the only two public meetings that Ratner has met with residents. and the Community Board one was basically a filibuster.

    and yes, the "reporting" is pathetic.
    jml wrote: To my knowledge, since this project was announced two years ago, Forest City Ratner has been present at TWO public meetings. One was held in the winter of 2004 by the Park Slope Civic Council; the other was a joint community board meeting at NY Tech in Downtown Brooklyn. FCR has turned down repeated requests by community groups in Prospect Heights, Fort Greene and Boerum Hill to present in a public forum.

    The Times states that a FCRC spokesperson showed them a list of meetings that FCRC had attended. If that is the case, it's likely that these were private meetings with community groups that are already in support of the project. Was this list not fact-checked by reporters? It appears they took FCRC info at face value.

    The thing that amazes me about this article on Ratner's outreach is that it came out a week after it was announced that the developer had reneged on providing a roof top skating rink/running track for public use.
  • anonymous
    anonymous
    i don't see what is suprising. the times is run by old rich white dudes. i don't care who they vote for, they aren't radicals or activists or even liberals. they are rich old white guys. the times is full of pretentious high and mighty reporters who are very far removed from this situation.


    besides that, the times is full of itself. i'm sick of them.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Anonymous wrote: i don't see what is suprising. the times is run by old rich white dudes. i don't care who they vote for, they aren't radicals or activists or even liberals. they are rich old white guys. the times is full of pretentious high and mighty reporters who are very far removed from this situation.


    besides that, the times is full of itself. i'm sick of them.
    I wouldn't argue with any of those points. However, it's still by far the best paper in New York.
  • crustythor
    crustythor
    i think the most egregious aspect of the times reporting about this situation is their constant insuation that the wealthy, white residents of the neighborhood are opposed, and that the poorer, african-american residents are for it. i can only assume that the assertion that the low-income residents of the neighborhood are pro-ratnerville stems from the "representation" of BUILD...and even when it comes out that BUILD has a direct financial interest in supporting the project, the times doesn't question this dichotomy they've set up.
  • bill c
    bill c
    ratner is investing his money wisely in fake community groups like BUILD. I don't see the need for him to put out fake news coverage in the Brooklyn Standard when he has the Times doing such a great job for him.
  • emily
    emily
    Oh snap! :lol: It's too true.
  • anonymous
    anonymous
    We know that you Times reporters out there are reading Daily Heights - how about a response to all this?
  • stuart
    stuart
    eliot wrote: We know that you Times reporters out there are reading Daily Heights - how about a response to all this?
    In your response, please explain why coverage of Prospect Heights is up to the minute and in depth when it comes to the fluff (eg, Pavilion sign, gasoline siphoning), but when it comes to a very important issue that involves the highest levels of municipal gov't, the Times' own landlord, bribery, false reporting to the IRS, race baiting, etc., the Times not only gets scooped by the Daily News but also doesn't cover the story with as much zeal.

    Are the editors--the ones who are ostensibly writing the headlines--rejecting ideas about the regular developments in the story?

    I really do enjoy the stories about the culture of Prospect Heights in the City section, but I wish as much attention were lavished on the politics of the Ratner plan. After all, there might not be much left of Prospect Heights' unique culture to write cute stories about once Ratner's project is finished.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories