According to a quote from American-Statesman publisher Roger Kintzel
that appeared in the May 24 edition of his publication, “Rich Oppel brings to
this newspaper a depth of experience and excellence that is difficult to find
today.” That he does. During the 15-year time span that the soon-to-be editor
of our local daily served in the same capacity at The Charlotte
Observer, that publication won three separate Pulitzer Prizes, the highest
distinction possible for a daily newspaper. The most recent of these awards
came in 1988 as a result of the that publication’s ongoing coverage of PTL
founder Jim Bakker, who was imprisoned for fraud a year later. Will Oppel’s presence in Central Texas bring our region this kind of national
journalistic recognition? Time will only tell on that question. But one thing
is for certain – the Statesman clearly lacks this kind of prestige and
credibility at present. Consider, for example, its altogether scattered and
schizophrenic approach to the recent FM Properties federal lawsuit against the
City of Austin. As shown in the day-by-day recap below, the paper’s coverage of
this trial gave local readers remarkably few insights into the intricacies of
the event. Were the Statesman covering the trials and tribulations of
televangelist Jim Bob Moffett, his ministry might still be alive and
functioning today.
Friday, April 28: “FM Properties opts to revise city lawsuit.” Appearing on the front page of the City/State section, this story explained
last-minute revisions in the plaintiff’s strategy as the trial date for this
lawsuit against the city quickly approached. Such changes restricted the area
in which FM Properties contended that the City of Austin had denied them due
process via its enforcement of the Save Our Springs (SOS) water-quality
ordinance to a portion of the Hill Country known as the Falls, a 25-acre site
that is less than one percent of the original claim. Yet the tone of the
headline and the ensuing article hardly conveys the overall significance of
such changes.
Saturday, April 29: “Pretrial hearing will set rules in FM
Properties case.” After its relatively prominent placement a day earlier,
the trial quickly moved to the rear of the B section. Today’s article explains
procedural maneuvers in U.S. District Judge James Nowlin’s court. The article
also devotes two paragraphs of background and salary information to David
Donaldson, the attorney representing the City of Austin. Unfortunately, no
mention is made of what fees FM Properties is paying their lawyer, Roy Minton.
Also absent is any mention that Minton served as Nowlin’s attorney a few years
ago as a result of the judge’s actions during a redistricting lawsuit.
Monday, May 8: “Austin, FM Properties tangle in court today”.
News of the lawsuit returns to the limelight, appearing at the bottom right of
the front page, just below a lengthy report on the preceding day’s Eagles
concert. The story’s most incredible assertion occurs in the lead sentence:
“With millions of taxpayer dollars in the balance, the legal showdown between
the City of Austin and a Barton Creek developer begins in federal court today
with jury selection and opening statements.” Millions of taxpayer dollars?
Really? What is now reported as fact was just three days earlier an opinion
expressed by FM Properties lawyer Minton in these very same pages.
Tuesday, May 9: “FM Properties suit begins with focus on city’s
motive.” Once again relegated to the second page of the B section, this
article details the first day’s events at the trial. And, as before, the story
seems written largely from the point of view of the FM Properties legal team.
The first quote in the article belongs to Minton, who asserts “We are talking
about a mindset and policy and willingness on the part of this city to stop
development. We believe [the city]… cost us a lot of time, and time is
money.” Minton’s words again shift the focus of debate to the financial
hardship that the city has supposedly caused his client. In a day and age where
so-called “frivolous lawsuits” have become a top item of media derision, it
seems remarkable that such an assertion would go completely unchallenged.
Wednesday, May 10: “Moffett spars with city in court.” The trial
stays in the City/State section, but moves above the fold as the top item on
page one. In this piece, writer Chuck Lindell (who took over coverage of the
lawsuit from former city council reporter Diana Dworin on May 8), describes the
courtroom actions of Freeport-McMoRan Chairman Jim Bob Moffett as “alternately
testy and poised.” Not the most positive description of his actions, but
certainly not as negative as some observers assessed them to be. In fact,
Wednesday’s installment about the lawsuit is a monument to Moffett’s commanding
influence – throughout the story, he is the only person from whom direct quotes
are printed.
Friday, May 12: “Barton damage claims disparate.” Today’s
coverage of the lawsuit falls all the way back to page seven of City/State. As
noted in the headline, this article covers the differing assessments of alleged
damages suffered by FM Properties as a result of the Save Our Springs water
quality ordinance. According to the story, FM Properties contend the city owes
them “up to $75 million” for the damages it suffered, while real estate
appraiser Paul Hornsby contends that in the worst-case scenario the amount
totals only $44,200. Unfortunately, readers don’t catch this last figure until
the third to last paragraph of the story. Moreover, one must read halfway
through the article to understand that the $75 million figure mentioned in the
lead sentence refers to the entire Hill Country area – most of which was
dropped from the suit two weeks before the trial began.
Saturday, May 13: “Barton Creek suit looks likely to hinge on
closing arguments.” Located on page 6 of the B section, this story recaps
what has happened in this trial during the previous week and points to the
closing arguments slated for the following Monday. For those who have crawled
to these back pages to follow the event, this installment provides little new
information about the lawsuit. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Indeed, rather than
emphasizing some of the important and relevant testimony from Friday’s
proceedings at the courtroom – including the words of a San Antonio attorney
who claimed that Austin’s interpretation of state law was reasonable – this
information once again gets shoved to the back of the story.
Tuesday, May 16: “Barton suit in hands of 8 jurors.” As a
decision nears, the story returns to the front page. Perhaps to justify this
placement, the article reverts to many of the exaggerations that plagued
coverage of this topic during the last three weeks. Particularly galling is the
second paragraph, which begins: “At stake is up to $75 million in
taxpayer-financed city funds.” No, not really. Let’s be honest and remember
that this huge figure refers to land that had long since been removed from this
lawsuit’s domain. As for the Falls, the only area to be included in the lawsuit
as per the April 27 revisions, potential damages here amounted to only $746,000
by FM Properties own admission.
Saturday, May 18: “Unyielding council could cost city more than
hefty legal fees.” No, the jury did not award $75 million in damages – nor
did it award the $746,000. In fact, it assessed compensatory damages of
$113,888 against the city. Hardly chicken scratch – but, not too bad,
especially considering the extensive resources of the Freeport legal team.
Still, instead of celebrating the city’s ability to defend itself against
big-moneyed special interests, the Statesman concluded its coverage of
the trial with a scorching editorial warning
the city against appealing
this decision: “The more hard-headed the City Council acts, the more likely
that – whatever happens in court – the Legislature will look with favor on
further reining Austin in with legislation.”
It’s this type of cowardly, one-sided journalism that makes our daily paper so
tremendously uninspiring to read. Were the Statesman not firmly
committed to promoting the agenda of its corporate cronies, the FM Properties
lawsuit might have provided an excellent opportunity for the paper to stretch
its wings, cover the ins and outs of local and statewide politics in a fashion
that was entertaining, educating, and enlightening. It didn’t. Instead we got
more bits and pieces of misleading misinformation, mainly confined to the
netherworld of the B section, away from most of the publication’s everyday
readers. We can only hope that things change under Rich Oppel’s direction.
n KOOP CHANGES: Austinites thirsty for an alternative perspective on the
news should tune in to KOOP (91.7 FM) weekday evenings at 5:30 pm for Pacifica
Network News. The half-hour program specializes in liberal and progressive
approaches to global and national issues. Following Pacifica each weekday at
6pm will be Chronicle columnist Daryl Slusher’s Daily Report, a
feature that includes incisive updates, commentary, and interviews on local
politics. n
This article appears in June 2 • 1995 and June 2 • 1995 (Cover).