Mr. Sun wonders in his comments at Hoggard's whether the N&R editorial board did sufficient research before making its bond endorsements. I'll add to his list with a few more questions about how the board went about researching its decision regarding WWMS.
If they didn't, then I have to I wonder, in the words of a friend who emailed me, "What do they do in these editorial meetings if not assemble facts?"
And is this the level of research they did for the rest of the bonds?
- Did the N&R read the nomination document of the stadium to National Register of Historic Places in order to find out what makes it historically significant?
- Did the N&R read the Sutton-Kennerly engineering report on the structual decay of the stadium to find out whether it needs more than a "facelift"?
- Did the N&R read the stadium task force's report on the recommended best uses of the stadium before doubting publicly that it will be used much?
- Did the N&R read the report produced by Walter Robbs Calahan Pierce for the city, detailing three possible renovation scenarios?
- Did the N&R talk to anyone in the department of Parks and Recreation, the Greensboro Sports Commission, or anyone from NCA&T, Greensboro College, or the Pony and Palomino leagues about how much they use the stadium?
If they didn't, then I have to I wonder, in the words of a friend who emailed me, "What do they do in these editorial meetings if not assemble facts?"
And is this the level of research they did for the rest of the bonds?
1 comment:
All good questions, David, and I'm glad you wrote them out. I also wonder if they read the WFMY piece on the stadium? It's hard for me to reconcile how two news organizations can come to such dissimilar conclusions about the same thing. I told Allen (in comments at his blog) that I thought some of their endorsements (and non-endorsements) were simply "stunning." I think this is one of them.
Post a Comment