One Op-Ed You Won't Read in The New York Times

This is one of many letters and potential op-ed pieces that were submitted to The New York Times in response to their editorial slamming the stadium back on December 6th. As far as I can tell, while The Times printed countless responses supporting their position, they chose to print but one critical of them.

It is interesting to contrast The New York Times editorial of December 4, 2004 in opposition to the proposed west side stadium to its own editorial dated May 19, 2004 on the same subject, along with various op-ed pieces against the stadium that The Times has run during that period, and, of course, its unrelentingly negative coverage.

In its earlier editorial, The Times complained that the stadium “…would be too expensive and far from the best possible use for the last large tract of prime undeveloped real estate in Manhattan .” Since then, The Times has broadened its attack, running stories with misleading (to put it politely) titles such as “Stadium Could Send Sewage Into River, Lawmaker Says,” op-ed pieces by “experts” such as Brian Hatch, whose main claim to fame was playing Forrest Gump to the single most corrupt Olympiad ever held, modern or ancient, and the “official” (official, of course, because it carries The New York Times imprimatur) review, or should I say pillorying, of the stadium’s design by Nicolai Ouroussoff.

With all this staged journalism, The Times was ready, at last, for its final grand editorial of damnation.

The Times focuses first on the stadium’s appearance itself, calling it “…clunky and unattractive,” a fact that The Times failed to notice back in May. But that was before Nicolai Ouroussoff’s review. History tells us that critics’ critiques are sometimes proven spectacularly wrong, even those that appear in The New York Times. The Times then buttresses its position by citing the Regional Plan Association study released on December 2nd, calling the RPA a “nonpartisan” organization, with the implication of a lack of bias on the RPA’s part, though The Times itself trumpeted the RPA’s opposition to the stadium back on July 21 in an article entitled “Report Suggests Forgetting About Stadium On West Side.” Further, in a profile of the RPA’s head Robert Yaro by Robin Finn published on August 24th, Ms. Finn writes “...the association is an advocacy group, but (Mr. Yaro) says 20 percent of its effort goes toward opposing plans it finds detrimental.” Hardly sounds, as of July 21st, nonpartisan.

It is worth noting that the previously mentioned profile of Mr. Yaro by The Times fits a pattern of behavior by The Times over the past year of rewarding critics of the stadium with fawning profiles. Mr. Yaro, Mr. Hatch and David Oates are three examples that come to mind, but there are more.

The Times states that this stadium would not bring a sports franchise into New York , which is, of course, incorrect, since the Jets now play and pay taxes and generate millions of dollars in tax revenues in New Jersey , which, last time I checked, is not part of New York State .

The Times states that the stadium would be used only eight times a year, which is incorrect. The Jets play a minimum of ten games at home a year, and up to twelve if they are playing at a championship level. Fordham has expressed interest in upgrading its football program playing their home games there as well, the Big East Conference has stated that it wants to hold a annual Bowl game there, and most importantly, the stadium would provide a venue for winter sports and events that simply does not currently exist in New York City, the largest media market in the world. Even if you accept The Times dire assessment of the stadium as an extension of the convention center, it is absurd to suggest that it would not be used for at least a few large scale convention events a year. This facility will, in fact, be very busy, all year round.

The Times also speaks in this latest editorial of an extension to the Number 2 train, which is a bit baffling. Are they referring to the 2nd Avenue subway plans? I have no knowledge of any planned extension to the Number 2 line. Perhaps I am just uninformed. Or perhaps The Times has made a glaringly obvious mistake. It is the sort of mistake that is easy to make when one is conducting an overly zealous attack.

I do not believe the stadium plan is perfect. But The Times is not interested in improving the plan. It is interested in destroying it. As the opposition leader Assemblyman Richard Gottfried’s office made clear to me, he would be opposed to the stadium even if it was free. And so, I believe, would The New York Times.
Tom McMorrow, Jr.
Founder, WestSideStadium.org