Was FCR really "bilked" by indicted Yonkers pols (and shouldn't an unwitting Brooklyn Standard contributor be careful writing in the NYT about FCR)?
In his Noticing New York blog, Michael D.D. White lays out the evidence to suggest that the New York Times leaned over backwards to accommodate Forest City Ratner in its story about the indictments in Yonkers.
By the way, the Times contributor who wrote the article, Nate Schweber, was a prominent, though unwitting, contributor to Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn Standard Fall 2005 "publication," with his name attached to two articles that he didn't write (as well as two others that he did write, at least in some form).
The Brooklyn Standard's publisher promised a retraction, in the next issue, but there was no next issue. The Fall 2005 issue was never posted on the web. Schweber was assigned the articles before the Brooklyn Standard came out and was led to believe it was a legitimate publication.
So Schweber and his editors ought to be especially sensitive to the need for careful coverage of Forest City Ratner and Atlantic Yards, including taking "Developer No. 2" at its word that it's not a target without confirming that statement with prosecutors (who won't comment).
By the way, the Times contributor who wrote the article, Nate Schweber, was a prominent, though unwitting, contributor to Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn Standard Fall 2005 "publication," with his name attached to two articles that he didn't write (as well as two others that he did write, at least in some form).
The Brooklyn Standard's publisher promised a retraction, in the next issue, but there was no next issue. The Fall 2005 issue was never posted on the web. Schweber was assigned the articles before the Brooklyn Standard came out and was led to believe it was a legitimate publication.
So Schweber and his editors ought to be especially sensitive to the need for careful coverage of Forest City Ratner and Atlantic Yards, including taking "Developer No. 2" at its word that it's not a target without confirming that statement with prosecutors (who won't comment).
If or when criminal proceedings of any kind are initiated against FCRC, the company will be prohibited from working on City contracts. AYP will be over, before it begins.
ReplyDeleteSounds great. But isn't it a State project? Does the state have a similar law? I'm not waiting with bated breath to hear that Albany has a set of strict ethical guidelines on such matters. More sinisterly, isn't AYP gonna be built by some LLC subsidiary of FCRC (or should I say, "creation"?), and might this also allow them to maintain a grip on AYP even if indictments were to come down? (Oh, the GLORY of imagining that latter event is actually causing something akin to religious ecstasy).
ReplyDelete