Balanced media?

No time today, but I did want to point y'all to something -- if you're interested.

Everyone (except the media) complains about media bias. Economists are no different, especially when it comes to news articles about proposals for new stadia (see, I can use fancy word forms) and other public works boondoggles. We think members of the media tend to be much too receptive to the "pie in the sky" claims made by proponents of the projects. [A recent study (can't find the link right now) showed this indeed to be the case. Reporters were much more likely to quote or cite proponents than opponents, etc.]

Anyway, the guys over at Sports Economist pointed me to this recent piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a proposal for a new soccer stadium (yes, I said SOCCER) that is supposed to revitalize a dirt-poor area of Philly. In this case, I think the reporter does a good job of presenting both sides of the neighborhood boost vs. boondoggle argument.

In fact, I couldn't decide for sure which side he believes -- though I'd like to think he'd come down on the side of all that is right and good. It reminded me of my first philosophy prof. We covered a big section on the existence of God and I never was able to tell which side he came down on. Only later did I find out he was very active in his local church parish. I thought that was pretty cool. Anyway, read the article if you have any interest in this stuff. It's not long and it does a good job (I think) of looking at both sides.

Honest admission: I realize the article may not be balanced at all. I may be falling into the "fair and balanced" trap of political news. It may be that the guy agrees with my view and that's why I think it's "balanced". Read it yourself if you want to check the impartiality.