May 02, 2005
Lede-ing questions
One of the basic principles of media analysis is "framing": How does an article lay out the basic parameters of a story, subtly steering readers toward seeing it in a certain way?
With that in mind, let's take a look at the first two paragraphs of a story from yesterday's East Bay Business Times:
The Oakland A's need a new stadium. The city needs an economic boost.Is new A's owner Lew Wolff the man with a plan to solve both problems?
It's not quite "When did Jason Giambi stop beating his wife?" but it's close. The A's "need" for a new stadium - despite having won the division title three of the last five years and turning a nice annual profit - is presented as a given, and a link between new stadiums and economic development is strongly suggested. This despite the fact that - several paragraphs in - Stanford economist Roger Noll throws several buckets of cold water on that notion:
"Are stadiums a force for gentrification? Heavens, no," Noll said. "These facilities create an economic black hole."According to Noll, 85 percent of revenues generated by fans attending a baseball game used to come from ticket sales, with 15 percent coming from concessions and sponsorships. Nowadays, the split is closer to 50:50."The best thing that Oakland can do for the A's is let them move to Santa Clara," he said.
East Bay Business Times reporter Eric Lai does drop a few hints as to how Wolff might be thinking of paying for his dream stadium, but these only rise to the level of rumor, or perhaps trial balloon. Wolff, writes Lai, has "said the A's could foot about $100 million of a stadium's cost" and "hinted he could raise the rest from investors." He then drops any questions about private funding to mention such public sources as an airport rental-car tax, and tax-increment financing, which he calls "a more promising way to finance the stadium without pinching local taxpayers." Don't even get me started.
