This particular instance of Star-Telegram journalistic malpractice has received a lot of criticism. My blog post about that bizarre article has had thousands of page views, the majority those viewing that page have been looking from outside Texas, according to the Google stats.
Whoever is responsible for the nonsense, which the Star-Telegram spews, needs to understand something.
If the Star-Telegram thinks it is creating a "positive" image of Fort Worth by spinning such nonsense, the reality is the actual result is thousands of people, via various sources, get the real story of what a backwards backwater Fort Worth actually is, with the town's pitiful newspaper of record being a sad metaphor for that backwards backwater reality.
Yesterday one of the victims of the Trinity River Central City Uptown Panther Island District Vision Boondoggle Facebook messaged me with a link to a page on the Trinity River Vision's website. That is a screen cap of the webpage link above. In the Trinity River Vision website's "In The News" section the "STAR-TELEGRAM: $55 million Panther Island community taking shape in Fort Worth" propaganda article is repeated, with a link to the original article in the Star-Telegram.
The Trinity River Vision's offices are on the ground floor of the Star-Telegram building. In that location you can see an incredible array of propaganda, including a giant model of what America's Biggest Boondoggle purports to someday be, after who knows how many more decades of boondoggling.
So, is the Star-Telegram some sort of partner of the Trinity River Vision? Shouldn't the Star-Telegram include some sort of disclaimer anytime that pitiful newspaper prints one of its Trinity River Vision propaganda pieces?
Or was this embarrassingly blatant propaganda piece actually written by a Trinity River Vision lackey? It is well known that among the many dollars wasted by America's Biggest Boondoggle many dollars are spent on "marketing" the various versions of the Trinity River Central City Uptown Panther Island District Vision, via propaganda means such as slick quarterly "newsletters" full of information about what little has been accomplished in the three months since the previous quarterly mailer was mailed.
I remember years ago when one of those quarterly Trinity River Vision embarrassments arrived in my mailbox touting, among whatever else was being misrepresented at that point in time, an exciting announcement about the opening of the Cowtown Wakepark, bringing the coveted sport of wakeboarding to an urban environment. J.D. Granger was quite pleased with this now long gone out of business early indicator of the boondoggle in the making.
So, really, how did that ridiculous propaganda article about all the Panther Island wonders to arrive in 2018 come to be in the Star-Telegram? Did the Trinity River Vision pay for this "article" which amounted to being an advertisement?
Regarding that article there were a couple items I forgot to make note of. One is in the following paragraph...
While land was being purchased and buildings demolished to make way for the $910 million flood control and economic development project, sometimes it was hard to imagine if it would ever be built — much less what it might look like. That won’t be a problem in 2018.
"While land was being purchased and buildings demolished"? Property was taken, years ago, via the blatant abuse of eminent domain. Under the pretext that this "public works" project was for the public good. However, this public works project has never been approved by the public. And if this property was needed for the "public" good, then why has this supposedly vitally needed economic and flood control development been developed at a snail's pace, relying on federal welfare to pay for it?
And some of those people who had their property stolen saw their property bulldozed before the property owner had had their case heard in a non-corrupt, out of Fort Worth court.
And then there is a gem from another paragraph which has bugged me every time I've seen it...
When it is completed, it will create an 800-acre island on the north side that includes an urban lake.
Includes an "urban lake'? Any lake inside a city's limits is an urban lake. Definitely not a rural lake. Why is this "urban" qualifier used to describe this lake? And that's another thing. This is not a lake. Large pond would be more accurate. Basically, according to renderings of what this vitally needed economic development might look like, the "urban lake" looks more like a wide section of the river. And the size of this pond has changed as the years of this century have passed. I think the most recent size I have seen of this "urban lake" is 12 acres. You are not going to be floating a lot of boats on 12 acres of polluted water.
Urban lake. The nonsense never ends. So perplexing...
No comments:
Post a Comment