Sunday, September 03, 2006

The King's Arena

The Bee has a very interesting opinion piece on the attention their columns have gotten, particularly on one issue: should the city of Sacramento help fund the construction of a larger arena? This was a look at whether or not the paper was being fair on the issue.

Columnists "are paid to have an opinion," the editor said. The news stories were all fair and balanced, but columnists were largely critical of building an arena.

The question that comes to my mind is this: is the paper required to publish the opinions of both sides? Prosper Magazine has blogs on both sides of the issue. That seems balanced. Should the Bee have done that?

I don't have an answer, but I do know this: if I were the editor, I'd like to say we had printed a point-counterpoint piece like that. I can defend that much more easily than "columnists are paid to have opinions." Isn't the paper supposed to be the voice of all?

Despite that, I'd have to agree with the Bee columnists... a city-subsidized sports arena where we already have the adequate Arco Arena is asking too much of us. I do NOT want to pay for a new stadium.

What do you think? I know more than just Michael read my blogs, so POST!

2 comments:

EDL said...

Alright... you want it, you got it.

No, I don't think papers should be required to write both sides. I tend to think that Freedom of Speech lets them say whatever they damn well please, whether I agree with the opinion or not.

Now, I think that it's a GOOD IDEA for the paper to publish both sides. While I may not believe a paper has to do it, I think that good, well-written newspapers cover both sides of an issue. I would think that the Sac Bee has high enough standards to do so.

Anonymous said...

I follow Erica's thought on this. It's a good idea to present both sides of an issue, but I don't think it should be mandatory.
I mean, what if all of the Bee's collumnists feel the same? Should they run around, desperately seeking to hire someone who just has the opposite position?
That'd be a cool job posting though: "Wanted, columnist. Must be in favor of the new Sacramento arena. Writing skills prefered."
And of course opinions are going to change based on what's discussed. Collumnists agreeing on the arena today, may all be diametircally opposed on tomorrow's issue.
Personally, I don't watch much basketball and Metallica fit their concerts into the old arena when they came to town, so I don't need a bigger one.