As in previous editorials, The Times is so hell bent on opposing the stadium that they don't even do a basic fact-check. Television rights to the Olympics are bid out years in advance. That is right up there with The New York Times confusing the Number 2 line with a proposed 2nd Avenue Subway. You'd think that when it comes to the reputation of someone like Senator Mitchell, The Times would be a bit more careful.

---

Unrelated to the letter below but interesting: Recently, Charles V. Bagli, a supposedly unbiased reporter, was heard shouting at stadium supporters during a telephone press conference, set up after MSG released it's response letter to the MTA. Impatient because he was on deadline, and referring to the MSG response this Friday past, he shouted, "Haven't you guys even read the report!" This fact can be verified by several reporters, who were on the line at the time.

Somehow, when I was growing up in a newspaper family, I never imagined a Times reporter acting in such a manner.

From top to bottom, The Times coverage of this issue is nothing but disappointing.

-Tom McMorrow, Jr.

---

Letters to The Times

February 14, 2005

West Side Stadium

To the Editor:

Re "Eyes Wide Open on the Stadium" (editorial, Feb. 9):

I am not involved in and have taken no position on whether a stadium should be built on the Far West Side of Manhattan, whether the 2012 Olympics should be held in New York, or whether there should be arbitration between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Jets.

I was asked to perform a professional service as an arbitrator if the parties decide to go to arbitration.

You write, "Mr. Mitchell would not be the right choice, despite his reputation for fairness, because he is chairman of Disney, which owns ABC Sports and ESPN, which broadcast football and may bid on the Olympics."

As to the Olympics, the television rights to the 2012 Games, for which New York is competing, are already under contract to NBC; there is nothing for ABC to bid on.

As to football broadcasts, the N.F.L. agreement includes all of the teams in the league. For years, many teams have changed locations, moving from one city to another and from one stadium to another. Which stadium will be used by any one of the 32 teams in 2009 and beyond is so remote as to be irrelevant to the overall television rights.

In light of these facts, it becomes apparent that there is no conflict.

George J. Mitchell
New York, Feb. 9, 2005