Will The Indianapolis Star Ever Post a Circle Centre Disclaimer?

The Indianapolis Star has published a variety of articles concerning downtown retailers and restaurants closing over the last several months. But a particular interest is the closing and opening of stores within the Circle Centre Mall, where the newspaper is both a tenant and an investor. None of these stories contain a disclaimer. And if you click on IndyStar.com's "About Us" section, it still claims the newspaper is located at the intersection of New York and Pennsylvania in downtown Indianapolis.

It isn't unusual for local news media to cover the opening and closing of restaurants, particularly ones with a long history within Indianapolis. But it is my view that The Indianapolis Star has almost an obsession with Circle Centre Mall. And they should make it clear to their readers what their business relationship is with the mall and that they have a vested interest in the success of the mall.

Farewell to Dan

Dan Carpenter, the long time liberal columnist for The Indianapolis Star, is set to retire soon. With the recent semi-retirement of Mary Beth Schneider, The Star and the Indianapolis community as a whole has lost a lot of institutional knowledge and their contributions will be missed.

When I ran for council in 2011, Dan was one of the three who sat in on the panel when I came in for an interview. Before it started, I ran into Dan in the hallway. We had a very healthy conversation about our concerns with the state of our city. And while I was running as a Libertarian and Dan is a liberal (I don't know if I've ever actually heard Dan refer to himself as a Democrat), I felt that we had a lot of common ground. I also commented that I had been reading his columns since high school, and he responded with a smile and a self-depreciating joke about his age.

There aren't too many strong, liberal voices in Indiana, and Dan leaves some big shoes to fill.

Best of luck to him and his family in his retirement.

Erika Smith Isn't the Problem, The Indianapolis Star Is

My friend Jon Easter has come to Erika Smith's defense in reference to her numerous columns in support of mass transit. Smith, a columnist for The Indianapolis Star, has published nearly a dozen columns in this calendar year in support of mass transit. Most of her anti-transit critics have attacked her for having an opinion that supports mass transit, but Jon defends it, saying that her job as a columnist is to have an opinion and she's hardly the only columnist to have a pet issue.

I agree with Jon. Erika Smith should write about what she wants. I don't particularly enjoy Smith's style of writing, but it is by no means bad. I just don't enjoy it. Not my cup of tea.

But the problem isn't with Smith. She's staked out an issue and essentially made it her own. The problem rests with the Star as a whole, particularly the overall organization of their editorial pages and columnists.

I am by no means saying the Star needs to go out and find people to argue against mass transit. I don't personally believe that newspapers need to be "balanced" in their editorial pages, that for every pro [whatever issue] column there must be an anti [whatever issue] to balance it out. That cheapens discourse and presents the image that two views are equally valid, and that isn't always the case.

But I do believe in diversity of topics. So when you have one writer focusing on one topic over multiple columns in a short period of time, maybe you don't need several columns from the editorial board echoing pretty much the same sentiments. Encourage other columnists to do other topics, or at least take a different look on the topic.

Journalists of all stripes need to ask themselves who, what, where, when, and why. But a journalism professor I once had liked to expand on the "why" part and add in "Why should I care?". Even the most passionate transit-advocates may eventually get tired of the umpteenth pro-mass transit column that says roughly the same thing as the last pro-mass transit column. It certainly is a major issue. But there are other issues going on that deserve some attention as well. With mass transit seemingly dead for now, hopefully Star readers can expect some new topics soon on the editorial pages.

Save The Star? What's There to Save?

Blogger and former Indianapolis Star journalist Ruth Holladay has extensively covered the Indianapolis News Guild's fight against cutbacks that have been mandated by Gannett, the Star's corporate owner. These cuts include a reduction in overall staff, pay cuts, pay freezes, and probably a whole lot of other things that makes it harder for the largest newspaper in the state to cover local and regional news.

And the guild's demands are not unreasonable. Despite it being a very tough time for the traditional print media, the Star is still overall profitable, and Gannett is taking in tons of cash. But they're largely doing it by cutting newspapers to the bone, outsourcing everything that isn't the kitchen sink, fluffing papers with wire stories and...well, that's about it.

So why am I reluctant to write about this? Why am I not out in the streets chaining myself to one of those new electronic parking meters that are on Pennsylvania right outside of the Star building?

Basically, what's the big fuss? This has been going on for years.

I'm often critical of The Indianapolis Star, what they do (and don't) report on, and what they editorialize for and their logic in their editorials. But I also know there are a lot of passionate employees who work at the Star, including their reporters and photographers. I know this because, if I make a factual mistake in critiquing the Star, I hear about it. Straight from them.

And when the Star wants to commit resources to covering a story, they can do an excellent job. They've been right up there with television media and blogs with coverage of the LiTEBOX and Duke Energy scandals.

But all too often, "coverage" of a story will be reduced to being trivialized in the Behind Closed Doors gossip column, such as was done with the coverage of Councilor Ryan Vaughn's conflict of interest in the parking meter scam sale. Or it'll be casually dismissed in a sentence within an editorial or a Tully column, as was done with criticisms of the water utility sale.

And this isn't something that developed over the last 6 months. This has been persistent over the last 2-3 years, at least.

So if I can be convinced that, if the Guild gains these concessions then the reporters will be able to pursue more stories, more aggressively, more often, rather than the sporadic appearance they are now, I'll be out there with a megaphone leading the charge. If that means whatever barriers are stopping reporters now will be lifted, then count me in as a supporter!

Until then, I'll just watch, observe, and hope for the best.

Will Tully Talk About Actual Negative Campaigning?

I apologize in advance for the weird formatting at the end. I have no idea what happened.

The Indianapolis Star's political columnist Matthew Tully has once again written a column lamenting about all the horrible negative campaigning coming from the Melina Kennedy campaign. Maybe it's just me, but I don't count talking about your opponent's record and actions as "negative". I know Tully thinks that Deputy Mayor Michael Huber is practically the Second Coming, and I like Huber as well. But come on, the Kennedy camp are raising what they believe to be valid points. Instead of just casually dismissing the criticism with a "Come on, he's a good guy! Trust me!", maybe Tully should explain why the criticism is without merit?

Or maybe he could investigate into some ACTUAL negative campaigning, such as what is being done by the state Democratic party on behalf of the Kostas Poulakidas council campaign? It's no secret that Poulakidas, with the help of his campaign chairman Kip Tew, has been a very successful fundraiser. So if I was someone who say, had a job at some type of media organization, and had the time and resources that a media organization would bring to the table, here are the questions I would be asking:

• Has Poulakidas, the county Democrats, or the state Democrats made a public statement on the negative campaigning? If not, try to get one.
• Why are the state Democrats involving themselves this deeply in a district council race? Yes, I'm aware that it's pretty common for the state parties to pay for mailers or commercials, but this seems like an unusual level of involvement.
• Has there been any transfer of funds from one campaign/political party arm to another to cover the cost of these direct mail negative pieces? After all, direct mail isn't cheap, especially if you want it to arrive on a certain day.

On another note, where in the world has Marion County GOP Chairman Kyle C. Walker been in on this? Christine Scales, Poulakidas' opponent in November's election, posted about the negative attack on her Facebook page on October 21. And still we've heard nothing from Walker to defend his party's candidate. And to the people active in the county GOP, I should remind you that Walker is drawing a salary as chairman. Bang for your buck, right?

Eric Holcomb, chairman of the Indiana Republican Party, easily does Walker's job , and does it quite well. In a press release, he ties the negative campaigning of Democrats in the Indianapolis council race into recent federal indictments on voter fraud:

Today, Indiana Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb demanded to know who was behind a mailer sent to residents of Indianapolis’ 4th City-County Council District in the form of a postcard from Florida purported to be from Republican Councillor Christine Scales. The postcard included a note that looked like Scales had written it herself meant to confuse and mislead voters in her district. Following the news that hundreds of signatures on nominating petitions were forged in St. Joseph County in 2008, this is yet another documented episode of Indiana Democrats caught forging the signatures and writing of individuals for their own political gain.

“You’d think the Indiana Democrat Party had learned its lesson that forgery is a crime. Obviously not,” said Chairman Holcomb. “It seems Indiana Democrats’ forgery operation has expanded to campaign mailers. So now we need to know: who’s accountable for this latest stunt? Did Chairman Dan Parker sign off on this deceptive and fraudulent mail piece?”

Holcomb added, “We have yet another example of why it’s time for the Indiana Democrat Party to clean house. Their belief that the ends justify the means is just plain wrong. In the Indiana Democrat Party’s Culture of Corruption, defrauding and misleading Hoosiers voters is the name of the game. The buck has got to stop with someone, but who?” — Indiana Republican Party

If I was Republican right now within Marion County, I'd consider having a serious talk with Chairman Holcomb about the need to clean house within the Marion County GOP leadership.

UPDATE: Over on Ruth Holladay's blog, I noted how the Star will often dismiss stories it doesn't

want to report on by either condensing it into a portion of their gossip column, Behind Closed

Doors or with Tully casually dismissing it in one of his columns. Maybe this tweet is a preview

of his next column?

Matt Tully Wants Straub to Continue as Public Safety Director

The Indianapolis Star's political columnist Matthew Tully put out an interesting tweet today. He's lamenting the fact that he wishes the Mayor's office could be "bipartisan." He wishes that, if Democrat Melina Kennedy beats Republican Mayor Greg Ballard in November, she'd keep a few key figures in place that he likes. Specifically, he points to deputy mayor Michael Huber and director of the Department of Public Safety Frank Straub.

Huber, who I've talked with several times, is a good public servant. I won't doubt that (though I will vigorously disagree with several of the projects he was charged with carrying out). But what does Tully love about Straub? What does Straub specifically bring to the table that, without him, wouldn't occur?

Was it the political move to promise a shake up of command staff after November's election (even though Straub has no actual power to hire or fire anyone within IMPD)? Is that what Tully loves so much, the politicizing of the inner operations of our police department?

Maybe Tully loves how Straub hires his buddies for cushy jobs while IMPD district offices have, at times, not been able to stock supplies such as toilet paper and pens?

Or how bout a guy who blabs about ongoing investigations, sometimes on the radio, that could compromise the integrity of criminal investigations?

I could go on. I mean, there's a lot more. A whole lot more.

Media roundup on Parking "Court" controversy

First off is the Indiana Law Blog, which has made three entries on the subject, the latest one raising these concerns:

My questions continue with today's story. Don't "courts" require judges with some sort of authority even if they are not lawyers, rather than these employees of the contracted parking ticket company? And what kind of procedural rules apply?

...

Sec. 103-59 deals with procedure on denial of violation, failure to appear, or failure to pay. If a person fails to timely admit the violation and pay the civil penalty, then under Sec. 103-59, "the violations clerk shall report such circumstances to the city prosecutor for appropriate administrative or judicial proceedings against such person." In other words, the ordinance violation bureau does not appear to be the forum to contest a parking ticket.

Paul Ogden at Ogden on Politics has an entry also, which the ILB links to:

Translation of that second to last paragraph? If you dare exercise your right to a trial over your parking ticket, the City is going to ask that your fine be increased up to $2,500. How's that for an incentive to pay?

The Marion County Traffic Court is doing the same thing. When defendants go into court they are warned by the bailiff, the prosecutor and the judge that if you take your case to court and lose, you can be fined an additional $500. Judge William Young lives up to that promise, imposing an additional fine of $400 or $300 on litigants who are unsuccessful.

Make no mistake about it. The Traffic Court fine and the City's threat of an up to $2,500 fine for parking tickets, are not fines for their respective offenses, but rather fines imposed on people for going to court. Most people I've talked to believe that fining someone for exercising their right to go to court, a right protected by the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, is highly offensive. The practice may also be illegal. Stay tuned.

The Indianapolis Star, however, has been little more than a mouthpiece for the city. Their two articles on the subject (linked to in yesterday's post) offered no opposition view, citizens' view, or question the need for a parking "court" in the first place.

Good going bloggers. We need you when the Star misses the ball.