Objection: Leading the readers

by Cyndy Hardy

Sedona, AZ - July 3, 2008 - If journalists were attorneys and the media was a court of law, Sedona Verde Valley Times editor Tommy Acosta�s July 2 article published on Sedona.biz would cause this reporter to interrupt with an objection.

From the beginning of his July 2 editorial analysis Mr. Acosta seemingly challenged readers� wit; and attempted to lead readers� reason by suggesting that there are only two factions to the lighting issue � those who want 76 lights and those who don�t.

Mr. Acosta cut out the middle faction who do not want 76 lights but who agree that some lighting is necessary.

In a poignant revelation Mr. Acosta states: �When opposing-council factions collide on a contentious issue, there is always something going on under the radar few can see or understand.�

If Mr. Acosta�s analysis is correct, perhaps the radar threshold lies at the fringe of the community�s special interest groups.

Sedona�s City Council is historically stacked with members of various special interest groups � or those whose political views are aligned with the groups; and while elected officials are required to conduct the public�s business in public, special interest groups generally are not.

Special-interest group members often make declarations of independence when speaking on the public record or in letters-to-the editor. While every resident has the right to speak for himself, astute or not, the general public may not know when someone is using the right to promote a special agenda.

Perhaps some special interest groups occasionally hitch their wagon to individuals who don�t intend to carry the load.

Astute news consumers might notice that the June 11 SVVT article referred to safety panel member Doug Blackwell as a �Keep Sedona Beautiful community activist/Sedona Verde Valley Times correspondent,� even though Mr. Blackwell insists he did not represent KSB on the panel.

Traditional journalism is thought to bridge that gap. However, freedom of speech and freedom of the press extends to all � including special interests.

Discernment falls on the readers� shoulders.

Astute observers might notice that those who prefer no lights to any lights on Hwy. 89A thought victory was in the bag after the City Council�s June 10 vote.

It seems that if an astute observer saw a successful reconsideration coming, it might have been reported before the June 24 council meeting. In a June 11 SVVT article subtitled �76 street lights off the table,� Mr. Acosta wrote that light proponents suffered �a crushing defeat.�

Now Mr. Acosta said that some on the City Council want 76 lights, although he did not name the �culprits� or indicate how he came by that knowledge.

Former Mayor Pud Colquitt and former Mayor Jerry Frey have both said on record that no one on the council wanted 76 street lights.

According to past meeting minutes, the council seemed more divided by those who said the Arizona Department of Transportation � not the city � is responsible for pedestrian safety and those more willing to fight for something that fits Sedona�s desire for dark skies even though Hwy. 89A is ADOT�s road.

It was Mr. Blackwell�s agreement to compromise with Mr. Levitt for 10 street lights plus other recommendations that enabled the committee to finish its report and send it to the City Council.

What may have surprised Mr. Acosta and others was that ADOT threatened to pull rank when ADOT reportedly perceived the City Council had broken the compromise, which took the wind out of the council�s sail and sent it back to the table.

Mr. Acosta�s description of �the Pro-76 lights faction�s strategy� downplays the media�s power and duty to keep elected officials in check. He seems to set the reader up to suspect anyone who challenges the committee�s non-lighting recommendations and supporting data.

Sadly, the SVVT editor concludes with an amazing revelation � the lighting issue is not about pedestrian safety at all; it is a contest about power over other contentious issues such as National Scenic Area designation and an alternate route.

But this is just one journalist�s analysis of Mr. Acosta�s article.

In the end, the Sedona community must play judge and jury.

� 2008 Cyndy Hardy. This article may not be reproduced, republished or distributed without written permission from the author. Contact the author at cyndyhardy@msn.com.

Readers' comments:

Comment #1

Counterpoint: Informing the Readers

This Sedona.biz reader strongly disagrees with Ms. Hardy�s criticisms of Tommy Acosta�s recent article, �Blinded by the Light.�

Her statement that �traditional journalism is thought to bridge the gap� seems woefully inadequate and nonsensical. Wikipedia defines a �. . . journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people . . . They can also present their points of view on current issues and report on the actions of the government, public officials, corporate executives, interest groups, media houses, and those who hold social power or authority. It is often described as �The Fourth Estate� and refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues.� Finally, Sedona is blessed to have at least two journalists (Tommy Acosta and Douglas Blackwell) who utilize cognitive ability in reporting the news.

Acosta�s analysis of all of the elements at work in the political arena seems to reveal his knowledge and experience in such arenas, whereas Hardy�s response appears to reveal either a large degree of na�vet� or her own bias. Naturally, the influence of special interest groups is always at play in politics. That is the very nature of politics as it is in reporting.

Hardy faults Acosta for failing to specifically include the �middle faction� of those �who do not want 76 lights but agree that some lighting is necessary when this faction�s wishes form the core of the Highway 89A Safety Recommendations!

Furthermore, Hardy�s pronouncement that Acosta�s article �downplays the media�s power and duty to keep elected officials in check� also seems to miss the mark as Acosta�s article does exactly that and he clearly recommends that those not supporting 76 lights �get their message out to the public through the community�s other media outlets.�

This reader questions Hardy�s intentions since in her criticism of Acosta�s viewpoint she has managed to use the type of manipulative rhetoric that �denigrates the experience, wisdom and preparedness of the new council members� . . . (with her reference to the former Mayor and Vice Mayor) . . . �through inference, direct statements and pressure through established-local media editorials.�

Finally, Hardy�s statement that �discernment falls on the readers� shoulders� seems absurdly obvious, since that is always the case.

Comment #2

Mr. Acosta's response to Ms. Hardy's article: Objection Overruled!