In this third post, I’ll address the quality of the GazetteXtra story from Carla McCann entitled, “Neighborhoods Oppose Housing for UW-W students.” It’s one of the worst stories on Whitewater I have read in months, and is the same league as the biased and misleading stories from the Whitewater Register. The Register cuts short the lives of too many trees, and McCann’s story needlessly sacrifices countless electrons.
I am not sure how long McCann has been writing about Whitewater, but I have not noticed her work before.
First, I’ll offer a quick explanation of the GazetteXtra. It’s a web-based publication from Bliss Communications, publishers of the Janesville Gazette. Some of its stories may also appear in print, but not, I think, McCann’s story on Nosek’s crusade against student housing, and the students he so evidently despises. That makes McCann’s story truly ‘extra’ as superfluous and unworthy of print. I am an independent publisher and author, and it disappoints me that Bliss uses the web to run second-tier stories that are unworthy of its print efforts. Our medium deserves better than McCann’s feeble, second-rate copy.
I’ll list some of the reasons that the story’s a poor effort.
The Headline. McCann’s story is entitled, “Neighborhoods Oppose Housing for UW-W Students.”
In many large newspapers, reporters do not write the headlines to their stories. I am not sure if that’s true for the Gazette or the online GazetteXtra. It does not matter; the headline’s biased for vagueness and generality. Which neighborhoods oppose student housing? Does the headline mean all neighborhoods, some of them, and with what intensity and consensus is this true? It’s like writing a post-election headline that said, “States Oppose Kerry,” or “States Oppose Bush.” Some did, some didn’t. Even within states, many people were divided. The headline of McCann’s story obscures – to the point of the laughable – the nature of opinion.
When did Roy Nosek become a universally acclaimed champion of all people in all neighborhoods? I must have missed that development. Last I knew, he was a dentist-politician who barely won a single council district by a mere – ready? – two votes. Two. In the GazetteXtra headline, one would think that Nosek was leader of a city-wide majority. He’s not.
(Note to all the stodgy members of the town clique: you need to get yourself a champion who can win city-wide while keeping his cool. You may be able to find someone like that, but it’s not Dr. Roy Nosek.)
Inadequate Sourcing. McCann offers only three sources: Nosek as the leading opponent of student housing, a council member who shares some of his views (if not manner), and a university official. Where are the students, landlords, homeowners who have renters, homeowners who have good relationships with students, etc? They’re nowhere in her poorly sourced copy. (They exist, to be sure, but she couldn’t trouble herself to the true reporter’s task of interviewing them.)
Opinion as Fact. Worse than inadequate sourcing is the way that McCann passes off Nosek’s statements, or other odd conclusions, as fact.
McCann writes, gullibly, that
The city has two ordinances, however, that could help eliminate the student-housing problem.
One of the ordinances prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together in a house zoned for a single family, while the other ordinance prohibits more than two vehicles from being parked regularly in the driveways or in front of those homes.
McCann accepts, implicitly, Nosek’s assessment of the ‘problem.’ There’s not even a suggestion that he might be wrong about the ‘problem.’
Even more egregious is her full support – more editorial than news story – that Nosek’s enforcement scheme will solve the supposed problem. His proposed solutions will solve nothing, as his enforcement schemes will exacerbate the tension between residents and worsen the lack of student housing. As I noted in Part 1 of this series, Nosek grasps imperfectly the close relationship between supply and demand. His restrictions on use and sale of property create shortages, as they leave existing homeowners without the same number of potential buyers, and will ultimately lead to a decline in property values and housing options that will impoverish the community.
These ordinances will also exacerbate tensions between people in the community, and foster a climate of tale-bearers and informants, whining to the police or city authorities at every turn. It’s a character-destroying way for a mature man or woman to live.
McCann presents no alternative side to this story, no proponent of an alternative plan. It’s just Nosek’s way, after an overly-credulous acceptance of all Nosek’s contentions. It takes a biased reporter to offer as undisputed views such gems as “It’s an old problem that has spread beyond the central university area into all districts within the community” and “They are parking illegally across sidewalks, hosting loud parties and failing to keep their lawns free of litter and trash.” Can’t you almost hear Nosek grumbling, “those vulgar, shiftless, no good punks?” It’s a one-sided story, of the sort that one reads about in high school newspapers, slanted press releases, and the Whitewater Register.
Poor Writing. What’s aesthetic beauty, by the way? Beauty would be more than enough. If it looks beautiful, then it’s a thing of beauty, and aesthetic beauty is unnecessary.
McCann’s story’s exaggerates Nosek’s importance, is biased, poorly sourced, and poorly written.