« Art attack: City to evict art space for … art space! | Main | Wrecking balls »
August 31, 2007
The Times knows how to do better, just not when it comes to Atlantic Yards
Atlantic Yards Report
The New York Times is capable of fact-checking dubious or incomplete claims and it's capable of sustained reportorial attention--just not enough when it comes to Atlantic Yards.
Consider the tough analysis of the post-Katrina recovery, as noted in an article published Thursday headlined Commemorations for a City 2 Years After Storm. (Click on graphic to enlarge.)
Imagine if, say, the Times had similarly fact-checked the projection (according to a document by developer Forest City Ratner) that Atlantic Yards would be finished by 2015, given that the official date is 2016 and the the timetable is already behind schedule?
Or if the Times had reminded readers that the claim of 15,000 construction jobs really means 1500 jobs a year over ten years?
Or if the Times corrected the multiple claims, which it reproduced uncritically, that Atlantic Yards would be built on the "same site" as the proposed new Brooklyn Dodgers stadium?
Or if the Times, belatedly but responsibly, corrected the flagrantly inaccurate 12/11/03 claim, by then-architecture critic Herbert Muschamp, that the project site "is now an open railyard."
Maybe it's tougher to correct your own mistakes, but the Times has had a significant impact on framing the Atlantic Yards story.
Norman Oder wonders who's responsible.
Posted by lumi at August 31, 2007 8:34 AM