Local political watchers generally fall into two camps when it comes to the tenure of the immediate past ownership of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Some believe Doug Manchester and John Lynch at the reins (or reign) was a refreshing return to the paper’s conservative roots, a philosophy that had been lost since the Helen Copley days. They also now fear what the SDUT’s political leanings are to become under new, liberal-leaning ownership.
Alternatively, others are glad to see the recent change, at least from a political if not geographical perspective. They strongly believe the paper under Manchester was too stridently conservative, pointing to its unabashed support for Carl DeMaio’s mayoral campaign in front page editorials as a prime example.
What strikes me as not fitting within the simplified context of those polarized views is one significant issue. Manchester and Lynch at the outset in late 2011 basically threw down the gauntlet when it comes to the need for a new football stadium in San Diego, saying the newspaper would be used as a mouthpiece to achieve such a goal, in essence adding they would ride roughshod over any “obstructionists” standing in the way.
Longtime sports columnist Tim Sullivan may have even been dismissed for his lack of comfort with that approach.
Let’s be very clear about this. First, as a newspaper owner, you have a right to do as you see fit with your asset, despite any criticism. You have a right to hire and fire as you like. Of that there is no doubt.
Saying the paper will be used to achieve the interests of one large business owner in San Diego, without foresight or knowledge of what a stadium deal will even look like or how it might impact or benefit the city, the region, or its taxpayers (which Sullivan described as endorsing “a new stadium without wondering whether that’s good public policy, a justifiable expense or a good deal”), well, that’s also an owner’s right.
Yet, it is not conservative. At best, it could be corporate welfare. At worst, corporate cronyism. Perhaps there is no difference.
I simply note this in reaction to today’s gutsy SDUT analysis by Business Columnist Dan McSwain, in which he writes:
Yet all the money for a new stadium, public and private, however it’s sliced and diced, would probably buy little or no regional economic growth after construction is done, according to a slew of careful studies over the last two decades. Sports venues certainly generate sales, but the overall economic activity is generally the same — and often less — than what would have happened anyway.
And this:
But what about the inevitable studies from stadium boosters showing gains? A 2001 Federal Reserve paper was polite: “The assumptions that are made in these studies — such as how much of the newly generated income will stay in the region and how many ‘secondary’ jobs will be created — often cannot be substantiated by economic theory.”
It’s worth reading the entire article.
Despite the philosophical direction of the current SDUT ownership, it’s a fair question to ask whether a commentary like McSwain’s would have even seen the light of day only a couple of years ago.
Comments 4
Yes, I note that McSwain has previously questioned the efficacy of a new stadium, prior to the change in SDUT ownership. The prior owner no doubt may have softened in his stance on the subject as it became clearer he would sell the paper. My “fair question” still stands.
Messrs Manchester & Lynch ripped up their “conservative” cards a long time ago. After the Secret La Jolla Cabal of 2013 when they literally conspired with other SD media, finance and political power brokers behind closed doors to pre-ordain Faulconer & DeMaio, both whom opposed prescribed GOP tenets of Life and Marriage, they dragged SD from it’s true conservative path into some murky RINO/Libertine abyss where compromise and alleged political pragmatism trumps conviction and political principle. During that time, thousands more left the GOP, including several key former staunch supporters and donors.
They weren’t stalwarts of Republican conservatism; they and their sychophantic lap dogs in the current GOP were de facto enemies of it.
All newspapers have bias. At least we knew what Manchester’s were. That said, like Barry Jantz, I disagree with Manchester’s biases, because they weren’t in the best interests of all San Diegans.
There are far too many conservatives who consider preventative social services with a measurable return on investment in cost savings (United Way’s Project 25 for the homeless comes to mind) to be wasteful handouts, yet they’re perfectly OK when their entertainment in the form of professional football gets a major public subsidy, one without a similar demonstrable ROI. This is why many Libertarian (like me) get so irritated with these type of conservatives, and get irritated when people (OK, Democrats) want to lump us together.