by Joe Tarr
As E.W. Scripps plans to make major changes to Knoxville's downtown, how much of it will get reported by our newspaper of record?
Early last month, the News-Sentinel trumpeted its plans to construct a $45 million office and production facility in Mechanicsville.
Knoxville officials—anxious to keep as many current downtown businesses as possible, and trying to revitalize the Mechanicsville neighborhood—were tickled to help.
Although not set in stone, the city has offered an incentive package highlighted by an in-lieu of tax agreement, which over 10 years would save the paper $1.7 million (possibly going as high as $3 million, if county tax breaks are awarded), according to city development director Doug Berry. The city will also buy 28 acres of land, demolish all the structures (some of them private residences), and clean up any hazardous waste for the paper, which will in turn hand over its current building on Church Street to the city.
As a bonus, the city tentatively agreed to rename Westview Avenue to News-Sentinel Avenue, Street, or Way.
Although a generous deal, it's certainly not uncommon for municipalities to subsidize corporations in the name of economic development. (The city is acquiring the property for the larger Center City Business Neighborhood, of which the paper will now be the anchor tenant.) The deals may not end here.
E.W. Scripps—the Sentinel's owner—is expected to be a major player in the convention center redevelopment plan, by opening a unique entertainment institute centered on its Food Network and Home & Garden Television cable channels.
But when a media company becomes partners with the city in a major business venture, can its paper be relied on to perform its function as a watchdog for the community?
With so much financially at stake in the project, will the Sentinel's reporters look critically at the city's plans, or will the corporate executives dictate coverage?
Councilwoman Carlene Malone—an often vocal critic of the city's administration—says, "Either they could be feeling they need to break their necks to be very objective because of the relationship. Or the worse case scenario, they could be compromised."
Coverage of the downtown plans have so far been straightforward and informative, she says. "I don't think they've done the investigative work. But I don't see their failure to do investigative work as uncommon for the News-Sentinel.
"I don't know if it's been good, but it's been consistent with their coverage."
Of Scripps' own role in the downtown plan, the Sentinel has been extremely quiet. Although Scripps was reported by Metro Pulse in July 1999 to be considering a major investment in downtown, the paper remained silent on the subject until Nov. 30, when Georgiana Vines defensively addressed the reports.
Vines declined to discuss her paper's coverage with Metro Pulse. But in her November column, she admitted that the paper is perceived as sitting on Scripps-related news.
"Since the News-Sentinel also is owned by Scripps, some community leaders expect us to know definitively whether Scripps New Media or Scripps Networks will establish a presence downtown, where the newspaper is located. This is not necessarily the case since each property operates independently, although all budgets and plans are approved by corporate executives in Cincinnati," she wrote. "We've even been accused of stifling public debate by not writing about the plans."
Vines went on to quote various Scripps executives and city officials blathering that discussions were taking place but no definite proposals had been put forth.
Scripps execs probably are keeping her in the dark. Their jobs are to make money for stock holders, not inform Knoxville.
Still, the paper doesn't appear to be digging very hard. When the Public Building Authority in January unveiled its concept for downtown redevelopment, the Sentinel devoted a paltry two sentences, buried in the story, to what could be its biggest, most promising component.
In some cases, the paper has become cheerleader for the plan. Associate editor Frank Cagle had the gall to say people were being too critical of developer Worsham Watkins International, apparently forgetting that millions in tax dollars and blocks of public property are at stake. Cagle has proved over the years that he is his own man—several years ago he even criticized Scripps in a column.
But when it comes to taking a hard, critical look at the downtown development plan, neither Cagle nor anyone else at the paper seems up to the task.
June 22, 2000 * Vol. 10, No. 25
© 2000 Metro Pulse
| 
