Friday, March 28, 2014

Today I Learned Fort Worth Has Been A Model For Other Cities Its Size & Larger

I got around to getting this week's Fort Worth Weekly this morning.

I was not long into thumbing through this week's Weekly when I came upon some verbiage which seemed to me to be totally Fort Worth Weekly un-worthy, as in something I would more expect to see in the propagandizing, Chamber of Commerce-ish, hyperbolizing Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

In this week's Fort Worth Weekly "Eats Annual Food Guide" the guide starts up with the intro you see photo-snatched here, with the intro titled "NOSH on THIS..."


Let me just copy the first sentence, with that first sentence being the one that contains the odd propaganda....

"Fort Worth has been a model for other cities its size and larger for the last several years and coupled with the growing local food movement, Fort Worth has been ranked as the most livable city in the United States."

You reading this in other cities in America must be sitting there in wonderment.

First off, what are these other cities Fort Worth's size and larger which have used anything in Fort Worth as a model for their own towns?

I hear crickets chirping.

There are several cities in Texas larger than Fort Worth, as in Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. Any of those towns using Fort Worth as model for anything? Is San Antonio now having Rockin' the River Happy Hour Inner Tube Floats in the San Antonio River? Is Dallas abusing eminent domain to take dozens of property owner's property for a public works project the public has never voted on?

How about outside of Texas? What town the size of Fort Worth or bigger has modeled anything in their town after anything in Fort Worth? Well, Chicago does dye a river green every St. Patrick's Day. But I think Chicago was doing that well before Fort Worth's goofy former mayor, Mike Moncrief, tried to dye the Trinity River purple.

Fort Worth has been ranked as the most livable city in the United States? That has happened one time, one time only, and it was not ranked the most livable, it was ranked in the top ten of the most livable cities in America, ranked by a Washington, D.C. lobbying group which was interested in promoting the urban village concept, with Fort Worth being the only one of the ten towns named which took the "award" serious, holding a city wide celebration for the bogus award.

I really do not understand why Fort Worth media, as in the Star-Telegram or Fort Worth Weekly, feels the need to propagandize in this manner with such blatantly foolish puffery.

I have lived in a town which was named best in the nation by a legit entity. That town did not go into a spasm of self congratulation, even though CNN showed up to show the rest of the world the Best Small Town in America.

A few weeks ago another bogus entity, something called something like Livability, ranked Fort Worth's downtown as being the best in America, causing an awful lot of perplexed head scratching. The other towns on the list were equally puzzling. Fort Worth Weekly's take on this "award" was more grounded in reality than this week's embarrassing puffery, with Fort Worth Weekly's article saying something like it was like being named Best in an Ugly Baby Contest.

Anyway, I certainly am not suggesting that Fort Worth is not a perfectly fine town, a fine town with many fine attributes. But best at anything? That is just ridiculous. Where does this need to self-aggrandize come from? Some have suggested it comes from a massive civic inferiority complex caused in part by being paired with Dallas.

I do not know what the explanation is for this type propaganda spewage. What I do know is it is embarrassing and really needs to stop.....


Double Ugly said...

You may not realize this, but Fort Worth was recently chosen the 20th most cowboy city in Texas. You guys got some real Fort Worth style bragging rights with that honor.

Anonymous said...

Durango, you are usually as least medium in intelligence, but here you've dropped a bit. This is an ADVERTORIAL. What that means is that ALL COPY is written either by the advertisers or for them. So choose your criticism of the media better. This is meaningless fluff that media like the FW Weekly throws out there. Anyone with half a brain knows it means nothing. To criticize this ADVERTORIAL is the same as criticizing an ad for a restaurant that says they have really great food and you should come to eat there. Get it?

Weakly Yours said...

Sounds like @Anonymous is a FW Weekley staffer or someone close to the paper or staff. The Weekley and it's staff are for the most part pretty cool about critiques and even criticism of their work, but there are certain writer(s) who carried over their FW Way cheer leading mindset from their time with the formerly relevant newspaper of record. This commenter's defense and definition of "advertorial" content in question are both pretty weak. At least, ethical use of advertorials include a visible description of the advertising nature and purpose of such "copy"...maybe @Anonymous had a role in writing this questionable "advertorial" copy in question.