No coverage of Atlantic Yards ruling in the Times; on AY, have they done "just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way"?
I'm still surprised that the New York Times, which last November belatedly covered (Judge Rebukes State Agency Over Atlantic Yards Timetable, online only) the precursor decision in the ongoing lawsuit, hasn't covered the more dramatic next step, in which Justice Marcy Friedman further rebuked the agency and ordered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Meanwhile, the Metro pages of today's print Times contain an article about performing the cancan on Bastille Day, another about a missing historic street sign in Jackson Heights, and a four-reporter investigation into Dominique Strauss-Kahn's weekend concert-going in the Berkshires.
Commenting on the Wall Street Journal's coverage of its parent company's scandal in the U.K., Times columnist Joe Nocera today observes that "The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way."
Couldn't that observation be applied to the Times's coverage of Atlantic Yards, being developed by Forest City Ratner, which partnered with the New York Times Company on the Times Tower?
Meanwhile, the Metro pages of today's print Times contain an article about performing the cancan on Bastille Day, another about a missing historic street sign in Jackson Heights, and a four-reporter investigation into Dominique Strauss-Kahn's weekend concert-going in the Berkshires.
Commenting on the Wall Street Journal's coverage of its parent company's scandal in the U.K., Times columnist Joe Nocera today observes that "The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way."
Couldn't that observation be applied to the Times's coverage of Atlantic Yards, being developed by Forest City Ratner, which partnered with the New York Times Company on the Times Tower?
I spoke with Liz Robins, NYT Brooklyn reporter, at length on Thursday, regarding the decision. Her comment to me was "it doesn't change anything". I explained to her several different ways that it did, and the general significance of the decision. I told her that at least she should report that it was her opinion that, giving past behavior, a new review would just be a rubber stamp of the old, but that was certainly not what the court was directing -- a meaningless exercice. After a half hour and a followup email trying to convince her otherwise, there is still no story. Very very sad. Don't think it even rises to the level of doing "just enough".
ReplyDeleteIf the Times reported (online) the earlier decision, they should, for consistency's sake, cover the follow-up. That's not a tough call.
ReplyDelete