The coverage on climate in the paper is getting better. Here's the start of piece from last month.
 |
| November 2022 |
The mood of the image, the headline, and the lede conveys a clear sense of peril.
But threading climate into other stories has remained difficult
 |
| He said, she said framing |
Yesterday's story on the prospect of commercial airport service engages only in he said, she said "balance," and it privileges the sales pitch. It does not try to find out what the truth of the matter might be. Even the section on critique starts with boosting from an esteemed Senator. With that positioning, the climate advocate might seem very fringey and extreme. Who's the weirdo? The rhetoric implies it is not the Senator.
 |
| The promise is the dominant note |
The piece is mainly structured around the sales pitch, "this time, it'll be different." Only deep into the article does it cite actual data from the recent history here and from Eugene.
Though it cites our 350.org chapter, it does not take those questions and critique to the City and ask, "Do you have a response? Do you think these are true?"
It's just two sets of opinions. Who knows what is true! There's no way to know!
What would be helpful is not merely reporting on the existence of boosters in Salem for commercial airport service, but an investigation into claims for it and how likely those are to be true.
As others have pointed out, the piece also does not emphasize the scale of public subsidy necessary, and discuss the opportunity cost, what we might choose to invest in instead.
 |
| Initial capital subsidy of $10 million |
 |
| Ongoing operational subsidy of $1 million/year |
The City is trying to reduce the initial capital requirements for the facilities, but there is still that $1 million per year operational subsidy "in all scenarios."
Salemites often express a wish for commercial air service, but is it actually a good idea? Or is it more likely yet another boondoggle? You'd never know from the coverage.
 |
| via Twitter |
2 comments:
Wow, what a surprise: Guy who sells aviation fuel thinks it’s a great idea to take even MORE tax money and give it to airlines to subsidize bringing customers for aviation fuels to Salem!
I have an idea: privatize the airport and put it on the property tax rolls and let the market decide what services make sense.
Or, at the very least, get every dollar of the airport operating funds from a tax on all the fuel sold at the airport.
Oh, and make them pay for a fund for health effects caused by leaded gas still being used (and thus sprayed over everything) by civil aviation.
(Comment moderation note: For longer comments with opinion like this, please create a pseudonym and use it consistently if you want to comment on the blog!)
Post a Comment