Judging from comments in the Chronicle's forums and elsewhere, a lot of people wanted to give CWS Capital Partners a variance from the Waterfront Overlay's 200-foot setback. The argument in favor of the variance was pretty straightforward:
The purpose of the Waterfront Overlay is to provide a buffer between development and Town Lake. There is no buffer on the CWS tracts now; apartment buildings sit within 20 feet of the lake's banks. A variance will induce the developer to demolish the existing buildings, increase the buffer from 20 feet to 150 feet, and provide a trail surrounded by green space. This will further the Overlay's goal. Denying the variance will not -- the developer will probably just rebuild the existing buildings, depriving the public of this buffer forever. It makes no sense to sacrifice the buffer in order to preserve the buffer.
Obviously, a lot of people disagreed, whether because they were worried about precedent, the prospect of tall buildings along Town Lake, or something else. But any fair account of the dispute should have acknowledged the supporters' argument.
The Chronicle was a cheerleader for Save Town Lake from the beginning. I therefore am not surprised that it disagreed with those who supported the variance. But I am still stunned that the Chronicle refused to acknowledge the argument in favor of the variance. Even worse, it did not mention, except obliquely, that there are apartment buildings squatting in the primary setback today.
See for yourself: Katherine Gregor's very first article in October 2006 ignored the apartment buildings now sitting within the setback. So did this November 24, 2006 piece. So did the articles and updates on January 19, 2007, January 30, 2007, February 23, 2007, April 27, 2007, June 1, 2007, June 8, 2007, August 28, 2007, August 31, 2007, September 14, 2007, September 21, 2007, and October 10, 2007.
I found only two references at all to the existing buildings abutting the banks. Back in November 2006, at the end of a long article on CWS's parkland dedication obligations, Katherine Gregor tersely noted CWS's threat to "leave in place some of the existing 1970s apartments, very close to the water," but she then assured us that "this seems unlikely given the parkland dedication requirement and other site factors."
The Chronicle went without mentioning the existing buildings again -- despite a dozen opportunities to do so -- until October 2, 2007, when it published a biting piece on CWS's astroturf "Extend Our Trail" campaign; the "campaign" consisted of an e-mail touting the CWS as "responsible development." The e-mail cited the removal of the apartments close to the water as a reason for approving the setback, and the Chronicle reprinted the e-mail at the end of the article. But the Chronicle cannot claim this as a disclosure. It reprinted the e-mail only after accusing CWS of lying and waging a disinformation campaign. (The piece began, "When you can't get what you want, you should like, distort, and take advantage of the innocent public for your own gain, right?") It was unclear from the article whether the Chronicle believed that any of CWS's factual claims was accurate.
That was all I could find. Over a dozen articles and updates, but only two fleeting references to the existing buildings, both ambiguous at best, misleading at worst. The Chronicle effectively refused to acknowledge that the buffer zone was already developed. Needless to say, it also refused to acknowledge that some Austinites supported the variance as the only way to clear the buffer zone of that development.
In the comment thread to this post, Michael King, the Chronicle's news director, defends the Chronicle's coverage:
In this thread, "slanted" or "yellow" journalism appears to mean any writing that comes to any conclusion but one that agrees with the poster's. The Chronicle has always been an explicitly advocacy paper, although individual writers can and will take opposing positions. If you prefer ping-ping, he-said she-said tape transcripts, I suggest you stick to the AP reports in the daily.
(Read his comments yourself; there is much more.)
I don't have a problem with the Chronicle being an advocate; honest advocacy is better than fake objectivity. But failing to acknowledge your opponent's argument -- much less the real issue in dispute -- is not good advocacy. Even public relations firms will address the other side's position. Good advocates (and, I thought, good journalists) care about their credibility. Dodging the issue is the quickest way to lose it. If you don't believe me, try telling a judge that you ignored the other side's position because you don't play ping-ping.
