Texas Observer Blasts Star-Telegram’s Barnett Shale Coverage — Tommy Lee Jones Weeps
by Steve-OThe Texas Observer took a whack at the Star-Telegram’s softball coverage of the Barnett Shale in its latest issue. While I think it is useful to introduce statewide readers to the suckitude of the S-T’s Op-Ed coverage on this issue, this is not new to those of us in Fort Worth.
I find most of the Star-Telegram’s coverage of the Barnett Shale to be uninquisitive, uninsightful and often downright unreadable (Exhibit A: In June, the paper praised Chesapeake for lighting its corporate offices in Fort Worth: “Most everyone’s spirits could use a boost right now, and that’s what the lights blazing atop the Chesapeake building do for us.” Meanwhile in another part of the city.) However, Jeff Prince of the FWWeekly, no S-T lover himself, is quick to point out that some of the coverage has occasionally been quite good. “Gradually, a couple of reporters – particularly Mike Lee in the print version and Scott Nishimura on the paper’s online blog site – have shown a determination to shine a light on both the good and the bad of urban drilling. ” I would say that Fort Worth deserves a better newspaper, but given current events, Fort Worth will be lucky if it has a newspaper at all before long.
Tags: star-telegram
9 Comments, Comments or Pings
Ben
Sharon Wilson takes it one step further on her blog by naming employees at the ST who have signed gas leases. Since some of you have signed leases how do you feel about her questioning people’s objectivity/naming names? I think the ST blog has degenerated into a clearinghouse for people to crow about their latest offer, where it used to be more issue driven.
Aug 20th, 2008
George
The Observor has never been known for it’s love of capitalism or democratic free market ideas. Thanks to the editors of this website a free market exchange of ideas from all sides is welcome here.
Aug 20th, 2008
Steve-O
I don’t really have an opinion on the issue one way or the other. Sorry, but that’s the truth. Most of the reporters I know wouldn’t be swayed one way or another by the gas lease on their personal residence. They are going to do their jobs anyway.
However, I believe that the paper’s Editorial Board is reluctant to even ask serious questions about in-depth big city issues such as the Barnett Shale, much less depart from the established Chamber of Commerce position that there is no downside to this issue. Not only is this bad journalism, it’s just kind of boring.
The paper should disclose the terms of its gas lease on the South Plant. This facility is not a small chunk of land — about 40 acres I think. The terms of the lease and the terms of the advertising terms with Chesapeake Energy are not a small amount of money. Full disclosure would be appropriate.
However, that is an interesting thought about the blog comments. However, most newspaper comment sections are totally unmoderated, and as a result, they are like “Escape from New York” or “The Road Warrior” — total, post-apocalyptic anarchy. We try to shoot a little higher around here. Keep doing your part.
Aug 20th, 2008
VinnyV
Those that run government and those that can influence/provoke the general population should always be under the microscope. Just my paranoid opinion I suppose. It is human nature to look out for your own interests and the media is no exception (see: Spanish-American War root causes, Rush Limbaugh, 85% of programming on FOX news).
Having said that, I agree with Steve that most reporters probably aren’t swayed by their little gas lease earnings. The problem with Shale coverage is probably more illustrative of underlying problems at the S-T and print media in general: too little space, too little independence, and too many deadlines.
BTW, unless you are guaranteed to never be laid off, I don’t think anyone should ever really “love” capitalism - more like: “put up with it until something better comes along or you win the lottery”.
Aug 21st, 2008
Greg
The S-T is becoming irrelevant because of its general refusal to cover tough local topics. While it still has some real journalists the policy direction is the problem and readers are abandoning it as a result.
Could we become the largest city in the US without a daily?
Aug 21st, 2008
Ridge D
Considering the tone of the ST’s content taken as a whole, it’s biased toward its advertisers and toward a political view that may me be dictated by its corporate owner. I gave up on the Star Telegram when it endorsed Bush II in the 2004 election. Maybe it’s the policy of local editorial boards to endorse candidates whom they think are the most popular with their readers. I don’t take or read the ST, but if I were someone who thinks the Barnett Shale is good for Fort Worth or anyone else, or who wants another republican in office anywhere, I might find the ST relevant. Maybe its relevance is measured from the point of view of each reader or potential reader. For me, the content of the ST is not relevant enough day to day to bother reading the thing.
Aug 21st, 2008
Mike Lee
Folks:
When you talk about the Star-Telegram, you’re talking about two institutions — there’s the newsroom, whose job is to report the facts and inform the public, and the opinion section (or editorial board) whose job is debating and shaping public opinion.
I think the term “editorial board” contributes to the confusion, since it makes it sound like all the editors are involved.
The newsroom has its own editors, and is supposed to be totally objective. It doesn’t answer to the opnion section, it doesn’t grease advertisers.
Steve-O knows how this works, but a lot of folks seem to miss the distinction.
The fact that the S-T’s opinion writers endorse Bush, or cheer about re-lighting the Pier One building, doesn’t preclude the news side from doing hard-hitting stories.
If it did, Jeff Prince wouldn’t be throwing roses at Scott Nishimura.
For all those who say newspapers aren’t relevant — go back and read Steve’s post from April, when the first round of layoffs hit the paper.
Mike Lee
Aug 21st, 2008
Ridge D
Mike Lee makes a good point about the organization of a daily newspaper of general circulation. However, we lay people look at a newspaper as writings that appear on a single stone. Maybe a state or federal regulatory agency should require that all opinions of a newspaper’s editorial staff must disclose whose interests the authors are intending to benefit or harm with the article. Maybe the fact that the editorial people are there to grease advertisers (which Mike Lee implies and maybe that’s not the case), all editorials should contain a disclaimer to that effect, like some advertisements in papers that are written like an editorial. Maybe Clark Gable’s cynical character in “Teacher’s Pet” was right that newspapers are about making money, and limit the content space so there will be more space for ads. Bad strategy when people aren’t reading the content. Maybe the quality of the content is important to a newspaper’s success. Maybe local dailies are dead because of the Internet.
Aug 21st, 2008
TXsharon
Ben, Ben, Ben..
Since you spent some effort discovering my last name, why don’t you supply us with yours and the fact that you are employed by the oil and gas industry which may color your opinion. How about explaining why you would expend any effort at all trying to discover my last name and why you feel compelled to use it on this forum so frequently when you keep your own name hidden.
What is on my blog about the employees is a QUOTE from the Observer article so I was not exposing anyone who was not already exposed.
Mike Lee does an excellent job. I have learned a great deal from his reporting.
Aug 21st, 2008
Reply to “Texas Observer Blasts Star-Telegram’s Barnett Shale Coverage — Tommy Lee Jones Weeps”