Voice v. advocacy

Jim Schutze fisks my D Magazine pals for their special issue on the Trinity project.

Tim Rogers responds.

I'm of mixed hearts and minds on this one. I haven't read all of the backup material Schutze cites; nor, frankly, the entire Trinity special, which was very, very loooong.

When we talk about having reporters bring voice into every story, that will inevitably lead to a certain amount of issue-advocacy.

Using a major (at least locally) media outlet to advocate a civic or mass-commercial cause is a tricky thing. I should know: While it would be a stretch to say that I was the father of these sorts of specials that D does periodically, I at least bought drinks and played wingman on the night she was conceived. And I've taken the old gal out on a couple dates -- once during the early days of the Dallas 2012 Olympic Bid campaign; and later in service of a group called "Decade of Progress" that was trying to pass a bond referendum benefitting a lots of arts organizations (and, by the way also a new NBA stadium) in Charlotte.

But, I'll have to admit, she doesn't look quite the same to me as she did back in the day. Is she fish or fowl? Journalism or propaganda? Or both?  And how does this turducken fly in a Journalism 2.0 environment?

D certainly isn't alone in doing advocacy specials.

I'm interested to hear what other Pegasi think.

---

Whatever you think of Schutze's take on the Trinity, the column (ostensibly a year-ender) begins with a beaut of a lede (best appreciated if you're a Dallasite):

Wow. What a year. The city's ship of state is pulling apart at the welds. Down in the engine room they're up to their necks in saltwater. Somebody threw the captain overboard. A big pirate ship from the Park Cities just hove into view. They want us to behead the remaining officers. We're thinking about it.

Speaking as a Dallas Observer columnist, this has been the second-best year of my life. The next one will be the best.  

Please understand. Rascality and mayhem are to me what wheat is to a miller. And I see bumper crops ahead.

He's right about that. This will be a pivotal year for Our City. Another reason we're in a hurry to get there and cover it.

Comments

[Scott Chaffin]

Nine simoleans? NINE SIMOLEANS?!? Who's zooming who? That is the first and only clue that I need. "Change Dallas Forever", and give us a double-sawbuck to see why. Wouldn't you think that if it's going to change Dallas forever, it might be a little more broadly available so everybody can see and comment? After all, "It needs citizens bold enough and patient enough to see a big project come to completion."

Pig in a poke, and I'm sad to see Wick and the boys sign their names to it. Civic boosterism is one thing...this is another entirely.

And I think Tim and Adam are being coy about the whitewater rafting bit...that's obvious sarcasm, and it's a perfect stand-in from Schutze's POV, for what this is (a handout to a very damn few) and isn't (a civic project that the entire city can get behind and benefit from.)

OK, I'm getting steamed, and it's NYE. Happy New Year, Peg!

[Bruce]

It's a lot easier to play fast and loose with other people's money. The problem I see in this sort of advocacy is, is there a balance in the reporting? I haven't seen the pub so I can't know, but if it is fair it would ask a lot of questions. What do the environmentalists think? Who's going to earn the financial windfall from the project? What's the real cost to taxpayers...not some ridiculous number, but how will it affect businesses? What is the need for the project? Where would that money have gone otherwise....schools? Streets?

On the surface, everyone's for improved cities, civic projects yadda yadda yadda. What's the reality? Why the push for this? When would it happen? A public facility, or another West End?

"Publications" - in whatever format - that presume to be journalistically based venture into unsteady territory with something like D's Trinity piece unless they take great strides to at least appear to show pros and cons. Pure advocacy always raises the suspicion of people who want to know why they're promoting a big-money project. The reflex reaction for me is, who's paying 'em to push this? And when you get people thinking that way, it hurts your credibility.

It doesn't sound like D's piece has done anything but push the Trinity idea. If so, I'm betting that they made a killing off of the ad revenues. Check out who is advertising with this and see what they have to gain by creating a "Town Lake" or whatever the hell they're calling it these days. I think that'd be interesting.

Sometimes I feel really old-school in my take on some core concepts for the Pegasi. But I can't not think like that...

Journalistically, credibility is all you have. Dan Rather had it for decades, and one really stupid move has forever tarnished him. Without it, if the perception is that you're for sale, you're toast.