Who in the press takes seriously the amended Atlantic Yards plan, the ESDC's rubber-stamp, and the concessions to Forest City Ratner?
Not the Brooklyn Paper. It didn't send a reporter. Nor did the Courier-Life. Yes, it was a deadline day, but this is a big story. (The print Brooklyn Paper does include two AY articles the paper already published on the web: about the IBO report and the public appearance of the arena architects.)
The New York Post didn't send a reporter but ran a 92-word summary. The New York Daily News did send a reporter, but didn't run a story. (The newspaper did have a lot of room to cover anchor Ernie Anastos's use of the F-word, though.)
The New York Times mentioned the action in an aside to a story on the potential investment in the Nets and the project by a Russian billionaire. (The Local didn't even cover it.)
The only (paid) reporters to approach the decision with some professional curiosity and skepticism were Eliot Brown of the New York Observer, who nailed the conclusion that the decision helped Forest City Ratner's cash flow, and former Observer reporter Matthew Schuerman of WNYC, whose main story was bland, but dug deeper in the station's news blog.
Crain's New York Business ran a story that just hit the surface, as did the Record, Reuters, and Globe Street.
Not the Brooklyn Paper. It didn't send a reporter. Nor did the Courier-Life. Yes, it was a deadline day, but this is a big story. (The print Brooklyn Paper does include two AY articles the paper already published on the web: about the IBO report and the public appearance of the arena architects.)
The New York Post didn't send a reporter but ran a 92-word summary. The New York Daily News did send a reporter, but didn't run a story. (The newspaper did have a lot of room to cover anchor Ernie Anastos's use of the F-word, though.)
The New York Times mentioned the action in an aside to a story on the potential investment in the Nets and the project by a Russian billionaire. (The Local didn't even cover it.)
The only (paid) reporters to approach the decision with some professional curiosity and skepticism were Eliot Brown of the New York Observer, who nailed the conclusion that the decision helped Forest City Ratner's cash flow, and former Observer reporter Matthew Schuerman of WNYC, whose main story was bland, but dug deeper in the station's news blog.
Crain's New York Business ran a story that just hit the surface, as did the Record, Reuters, and Globe Street.
Even in a scant 92 words the New York Post does the ESDC/Ratner-DePlasco's PR bidding: "allows Bruce Ratner to secure private land needed for the $4.9 billion project..." NO! "allows the ESDC to commit Eminent Domain Abuse on behalf of Bruce Ratner,to seize the private property he covets for his $5 billion phantom project..."
ReplyDelete-- Patti Hagan