I don’t think that’s true. I recall numerous articles in addition to op-eds and editorials that gave the “real data” about car commute rates, car commuter income, etc. Aren’t the media supposed to report all sides of a story (particularly the argument that won the day)?

Reporters love human interest stories and conflict.

Well, but that’s my point. They didn’t talk to any real poor people who would have had to pay more. All of the actual human-interest stories I read were:

(a) people who could easily have paid more
(b) businesspeople who would have saved more than $8 from lower congestion

There were ZERO examples of actual wage-earners below the median income who drove to Manhattan on weekdays. Zero.

Reporters could have focused on the people in LIC who currently are swamped with bridge traffic – but that would have required making a connection between toll-shopping and congestion pricing. They could have talked to people who would have gotten dedicated bus lanes into the city – but that would have required making a connection between congestion pricing and transit funding. They could have figured out how much a car-less family pays in taxes to maintain the bridges they don’t use, but that would have required making a connection between congestion pricing and bridge funding. No, let’s keep it simple: some “poor” schmuck is going to have to pay $8 a day.

What do you mean that the “media” is supposed to report both sides of a story? They are private businesses not public businesses. You only think that they operate for the public’s benefit. Every newspaper is either privately owned or publicly owned by shareholders. They report what is in their best interest. They choose every day what to publish, how to publish it and what not to publish. The media tells stories for their own profit not for your betterment.

It is a falsity to expect media to report both sides. Media doesn’t have to do so. The sooner this is understood the less respect you’ll have for media. Its a business, like Wal-Mart or a green, green bike shop. Someone opened the business (started the newspaper) to reap a reward. They did start the biz to be fair.

Nonprofits are in a different class but not necessarily free of the same issues.

To address the original article, quote “it’s easy to impart made-up motivations to imaginary characters, but how about citing some real data?”

Fine. But here’s the response in one post, typical of many: “Oh, and by the way, 9 times out of 10 it is the contractor, not some poor carpenter working for an hourly wage, who brings the tools to a job site.” Is this the “real data” that you write of? Because this is the kind of stuff I see on here ad naseum.

What does piss me off about the media — and what I admit I did see happen many times during the CP debate — is when they treat uninformed loudmouths as if they’re equally credible as established experts in the field. They’ll take an expert in traffic management and give him 30 seconds and then grab some random person off the street who happens to disagree and give him 30 seconds too and call that responsible reporting. It’s ridiculous. But remember, not only are they trying to attract viewers or readers, most journalists are just lazy.

Jan and Mark,

My comment is based on my eight years work in the construction industry here in New York City. I don’t have a better source than that. Anyone with data (or experence) that confirms or disproves my experience can post it, and we will have a conversation going. That’s how blogs work. I don’t have to wait until I have a thoroughly-vetted, professional quality piece of journalism in order to post my thoughts.

By the same token, my posted throughts don’t carry the same presumptive credibility that a published article in a major media institution like the NYT does. Journalists are one of the many professions in the U.S. that involve work for a profit AND have ethical standard enforced through self-regulation. Doctors and lawyers are not all that different, although their self-regulation is a bit more formalized. Working for a profit and having ethical standards are not mutually exclusive.

The press isn’t called the “fourth estate” for nothing–it has a responsibility to the public ethically report the information it gathers. In dischargint that reponsibility there is wide latitude for difference based on viewpoint–I don’t pretend there is a single “objective” way to report a story.

Frankly I think the NYT article on Brodsky probably falls just within the range of reasonable, though the editorial tone that emerges in the middle may be a bit beyond the pale. My critique of the myth of the Flatbush carpenter was not a critique of the NYT for having published it so much as a critique of the concept itself, as advanced by Brodsky during the CP battle and apparently in conenction with this article.

Sorry I misunderstood you, Mark. How about it, Jan?