The Importance of the Critical Question
Sometimes I wonder if everyone truly understands the history and lessons of the original Metropolitan Area Projects, which without a doubt have transformed downtown into the success story it is today.
I’m proud of the role reporters played in that story. I’m not boasting about my own efforts – I’m talking about the collective efforts of a group of reporters that included Melissa Gandall at KTOK, Alex Cameron at KWTV, myself and Jack Money at The Oklahoman, and Holly Bailey at The Gazette. I believe we gave MAPS the coverage it deserved. We asked critical questions, we scrutinized plans and budgets, and we did stories that weren’t always popular with those leading the projects.
But look back. I’m pleading with a specific group of people like Jim Couch, Jim Thompson and others who were in the battle at this moment of time. What if no one critically questioned the location of the library? What if no one questioned having the Bricktown Canal broken into three segments instead of two? What if no one forced a serious introspective look at financial analysis and planning for the projects? What if no one ever questioned motives and agendas?
No, it wasn’t easy on one’s pride. Not everyone in leadership agreed with the coverage. But some of this town’s best journalists (I credit where I am today from having learned from the others) were free to do their jobs, unhampered, with their judgment, and not the judgment of those who had an interest in the stories’ outcome, crafting and molding coverage day to day.
Did all of this coverage diminish from the MAPS success story? And is this part of the MAPS story relevant to today?
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Brent, forgive me if I’m missing something here, but much of what you’re citing here as my reporting or writing is actually comments and questions by readers to this site. The questions about the mayor being at ULI are being brought about by visitors to this site. I’ve given equally unpopular coverage to the Producers Coop site. I’m working very hard to identify those who are critical and delve into their concerns for all to hear and discuss.
Steve, I want to be very careful because I think your reporting is really pretty good, but most of the stories are about aspects critical of C2S and such and therefore it does not take much to think that if all the stories are about criticisms of the current plans, then something is wrong with the plans. Now that isn’t really your fault, e.g. re: the recent ULI story, the ULI is the organization that was here and was taking issue with aspects of C2S, of course that must be reported and it is just a fact when it was written that the Mayor’s office said he would watch a DVD of the presentation (that is also something that really should be discussed, it is not insignificant). It is just human nature that if people read mainly criticisms of the plans, then where there is smoke there is fire and therefore something is wrong.
C2S is the plan on the table and thus it of course is the plan under the microscope. But if there are “important” OKC people who are not happy, there should come a point when they should be named even if they don’t agree with the coverage of themselves. And if they don’t have alternatives to be debated we should know…e.g. if there is a developer in Automobile Alley who is not in favor of C2S, well we can debate those motives as to why, or if someone really wants the CC in the lumberyard or Coop site…well why is that. Again, I really do not have much of an issue personally, I just would like to see some more tough questions thrown the opponents way so I can come up with a better opinion of what may be best for the city. Keep up the good work though.
Brent: I think by definition any criticism/questions etc is going to be “one sided” (the side other than the official version). Are you suggesting that questions shouldn’t be asked? That we should see a balance of puff pieces that could have been written by the Mayor’s office or a Chamber press release?
If the Mayor is questioned as to why he didn’t attend (maybe he was out of town on business or some other valid reason), do you think an acceptable answer is “I ordered a DVD”? That really didn’t answer the question, now did it?
I think the various media have been pretty good in disclosing the motives/agendas of those wanting some of the other sites for the Convention Center. The Bricktown folks naturally want a location closest to Bricktown etc.
The one that we haven’t heard much from is why the City/Mayor/Chamber’s preference for it to be adjacent to the Park site. Why do they want that site?
The 5 “W’s” of good reporting are Who, What, When, Where and Why. The Why is the one that seems to be left out (not directed at Steve). They will get their sound bite or quote for the paper and then don’t ask the follow up question(s). Or maybe they do ask, but don’t get an answer to the question asked (see above about the Mayor’s “no show”).
Larry, I certainly don’t think the questions shouldn’t be asked…as I stated they should be and always should be. My only problem, if it can be called that, is the questioning of the questioners. Just as others question Kirk Humphries’ motives and others, I would like to hear about the OKC individuals opposed to C2S and get to question their motives (not just regarding the CC site). I also don’t think stories with people who support C2S are puff pieces at all. They are integral to getting all sides. We need to hear from those who support C2S as well as citicize it. If you want to discount the Mayor’s office or Chamber’s view, that is certainly your right, I just take their views into consideration when forming my own opinion. If the only people who support C2S are the Mayor and Chamber, then that is something to be considered in itself. Maybe since we know that the Mayor supports it, we don’t need to know his reasoning or the reasoning of the other supporters of C2S. But it has been quite some time since we have heard why this part of C2S or that is a preferred proposal. Perhaps the Mayor and other supporters have just begun taking a low profile and will not comment, that is also something to consider if that is the case. As I said, the Mayor just getting a DVD of the ULI persentation is something to be discussed.
For the record, there are plenty of aspects of C2S I question myself, but I want to hear all aspects of every side to either confirm my questions or dispel them. For example, if C2S supporters have now heard the ULI’s position and disagree I would like to know why. Neither the Mayor nor the ULI are infallible and the only way we can get the best result for OKC is if all the decision makers have an open mind and consider all positions before entrenching themselves either “for” or “against” a particular result.
It’s relevant, but that’s the media’s job, whether it makes them popular or not. I’d like to see more of it, MUCH more of it.
You have to ask questions, it is part of the media’s job. I like Mayor Cornett, he is the face of our franchise if you will, but he seems like he is trying to create a legacy. At his position, I doubt he is afraid of criticism but I hope he doesn’t get too stubborn on this issue of C2S.
“Maybe since we know that the Mayor supports it, we don’t need to know his reasoning or the reasoning of the other supporters of C2S.”
WOW
Larry, just re-read my last post…clearly I’m saying we NEED to know their reasoning, we just haven’t been getting much of it lately for whatever reason. I’m not really trying to advocate much on one side or the other of C2S yet (my lean is to support, but there are good questions being brought up on the other side). I just want additional information from both the supporters and detractors is all I’m saying.
My thoughts are that these questions and experiences are absolutely relevant to today, both with MAPS III and C2S. However, I think where some people become concerned and question some reporting is when the criticism is seen to be all one sided (e.g. why isn’t the Mayor at ULI, why is the plan to build the CC near the park, will the city have the courage to listen to the ULI, etc.). I keep reading that there is criticism from “important” OKC people regarding the proposals, but we can not dissect their motives and agendas without knowing who they are and what their counter proposals may be. A true discussion will also involve knowing these people, their actual proposals and the pros and cons of them too…we clearly know where the Mayor sits, but who are these other “shadowy” people. What are their motives and agendas? Questions should be given to all sides, only through that type of crucible can get the best decisions for OKC.