In doing my research for Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS — OKC's 1st Successful Extreme Makeover (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/maps-okcs-1st-successful-extreme.html) that I'm still working on (the original MAPS), from that and other information it became evident that coverage in today's Oklahoman is different than it was in that time. I've begun a comparison between "then" and "now" Oklahoman articles in Doug Dawgz Blog: About Our Principal Bee Watcher (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html).

Since the days of American independence, our principal bee-watchers have been and should continue to be our free and independent printed press (unless one is content with today's TV sound bites), which principally means, right here in Oklahoma City, the Oklahoman. But, is it sometimes necessary to watch the watcher? I think that is so ... hence, the theme my article is Bee-Watcher-Watchers ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/beewatcher.jpg

For now, the article's content is mainly the "then" but the "now" should fill itself out between now and December 8. Every article is and will be linked so that you can read each full article, old and new. You will be able to compare the Oklahoman's news coverage sans my opinion and the articles will speak for themselves, old and new. Perhaps I will be proven wrong in my assumption and hypothesis.

I found it interesting in reading original MAPS Oklahoman articles that, as late as a few days prior to the election, the Oklahoman ran an investigative reporting piece (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/MAPS%201993/maps1_1993_12_10.jpg) on errors/mistakes contained in the MAPS proposal, even though the Oklahoman's editorial position was consistently pro-MAPS. Clearly, the December 10 article could have had an adverse effect on the December 14 election. Evidently, in 1993, editorial opinions and fact reporting were in different and insulated bubbles which were not required to be in lock-step.

Please understand ... the issue here isn't whether one is pro-or-con MAPS 3. I'm pro-MAPS 3 and some of you are not. That's beside my point. The issue presented is, instead, thorough, honest, and robust journalism, that type which is worthy of being a part of the noble, and constitutionally protected, 4th Estate.

The 1993 articles are already done and linked but, of course, the 2009 articles remain to be fleshed out. Beginning with and including the September 30 article which reported on the City Council's decision to put MAPS 3 to a vote of the people, no news or opinion pieces or whatever have been reported in the last 20 days.

Why not? Still waiting for those October press conferences which spell out MAPS 3 better, I am. From the city's MAPS 3 website ...


Please note that more information on each project will be made available at regular press conferences BEGINNING IN OCTOBER.
... which, of course, means that we'll be hearing some official MAPS 3 news in the next week or so since the same has not occurred in October's 1st 20 days. Or not.

Yes, I'm voting for MAPS 3 ... but ... but ... but ...

Thanks for all your work, Doug. Yes, clearly the city shouldn't be resting on its MAPS laurels. I believe they're gearing up for volunteer work, though, as I've been contacted, so hopefully more definitive information will be available soon.

Thanks, Betts, but from your comment it is evident that I didn't clearly make my point (which was probably blurred by the remarks at the end about October press conferences, etc.).

I don't doubt that a geared-up MAPS 3 campaign isn't in the works and is ready to be unfolded. God knows that it will be. The Chamber will do its job well, just as it it did with original MAPS and the March 4 Ford Center vote. Hopefully during that blitz, new data about MAPS 3 will be presented.

But that's not my point, and it was my fault for blurring it at the end. My point is different ... it has to do with newspaper ownership/management influencing and/or limiting full journalistic investigation and news coverage and presentation, notwithstanding the newspaper's ownership/management's editorial posture and opinion. It has to do with not properly managing an internal conflict of interest.

The issues of desiring more information, and fair investigation and reporting of relevant matters in debate, are not the same. My beef is with the Oklahoman, it is not about the desirability of passing MAPS 3.

Ah, good point. I don't know if that is an editorial policy, or a management policy. Autonomy varies at different newspapers, of course. We've got a different editorial staff and different managment, so it's difficult to tell.

Ah, good point. I don't know if that is an editorial policy, or a management policy. Autonomy varies at different newspapers, of course. We've got a different editorial staff and different management, so it's difficult to tell.
It's not difficult for me. Have you seen an Oklahoman article since September (other articles existed before that time) by anyone at the Oklahoman which looked at any aspect of MAPS 3 critically, in the sense that a journalist would? If you can't think of any, and given the newsworthyess of MAPS 3, how would you account for the absence of Oklahoman reporting which looked into MAPS 3 since that time?

As I said in Doug Dawgz Blog: About Our Principal Bee Watcher (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html) ...


But the real point is this: Since the September 30 City Council vote, any number of news articles reporting on various aspects of MAPS 3 could have been, and would have been expected to have been, investigated and published. Examples: Issues concerning the vague ballot and the non-binding City Council resolution, including the city's claim that "log rolling" is now prohibited in municipal sales tax elections; issues concerning whether a new convention center is desirable; issues concerning the location of the proposed Convention Center, even if desirable; issues concerning city-unions not supporting MAPS 3; and so on.

Topics like the above are newsworthy, regardless of one's disposition to favor, or disfavor, MAPS 3. They are also newsworthy topics which are shrouded with silence in the Oklahoman.
Think about it ...

NEW FLASH! The Oklahoman does a story on MAPS 3, the 1st since the Oklahoman reported that council voted to submit MAPS 3 for vote. My paper version of the Oklahoman was water-logged this morning and I didn't pick up on the story below until David Holt (he having noticed in Doug Dawgz Blog: About Our Principal Bee Watcher (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html)) that I'd said, according to the city's MAPS 3 website that,


Please note that more information on each project will be made available at regular press conferences BEGINNING IN OCTOBER. and that I said none had yet occurred. When I first wrote that, it was so. I updated the article yesterday and today, saying that fact remained true. When I added those notes yesterday (and reaffirmed them today), it was not.

When I first wrote that (on October 20), I wasn't then aware that the mayor was set to make a talk at a pay-for luncheon ($35 for non-chamber members, $30 if you are) yesterday at the Skirvin, October 21. David sent me an e-mail this evening, noting my omission. Duly noted!

I suppose some might say that this qualifies, after a fashion, as a "regular press conference." You tell me.

Anyway, I missed the Oklahoman's article by Jesse Olivarez (who dat?) in this morning's paper. Read it for yourself here: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/luncheons-map-out-oklahoma-citys-tax-plan-details/article/3410984?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0UhuEEWe V) .

If any real news is contained in that article, other than the fact that the mayor delivered what the article describes as a "short speech" to a chamber-sponsored luncheon at the Skirvin, I'd be hard-pressed to figure out what any such news might be.

Where are the Oklahoman's journalists who would ordinarily cover events such as this?

A sidebar comment to the article reads,


More events planned

→Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett has scheduled two more Breaking Through luncheons, during which he and other featured speakers will discuss details about MAPS 3. The luncheons will be 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Oct. 29 and Nov. 16. Both will be at the Petroleum Club, 100 N Broadway Ave., Suite 3400.

→The cost is $30 for Greater Oklahoma City Chamber members and $35 for nonmembers.
You can leave comments to the article should you wish to, as did I.

If someone wants to give me a comp ticket, sure, I'll go and then report what I hear and see, information which should be available to all voters and not just the MAPS 3 pep club. I have no gripe with the Chamber. I think that it does its job well. But, one shouldn't have to pay 35 bucks to hear what the mayor has got to say about MAPS 3.

If I don't get a comp ticket, I'll save my $35 and wait for more good reporting by the Oklahoman or other respected members of the 4th estate ...

Agree completely Doug!

Luncheons ‘map’ out Oklahoma City’s tax PLAN DETAILS (10/22/09)

Hmmm notice that headline and in the article:

...During his short speech, Cornett revealed details of the proposal...

and the mayor reiterated what he has said many times:

...the biggest issue facing the MAPS 3 proposal is making sure people living in Oklahoma City are well-informed about the MAPS 3 proposal.

"These projects are strong, but we’ve got to communicate them so people truly understand what it is they’re voting for,”


WHERE ARE THE DETAILS that we were told would be coming, "starting in October"? We are 3/4 of the way thru the month.

My Doug Dawgz Blog: About Our Principal Bee Watcher (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html) blog article has now been appropriately revised.

okc leader's feet, meet dawgblog fire

fire, meet feet

Hopefully, y'all will get along and invite info over to play with you on a regular basis the next few weeks.


if not, well, I think the Dawg knows c'mere from sic 'em very well

:LolLolLol:LolLolLol:LolLolLol

I do still maintain hope that the Oklahoman will reverse itself and will resurrect its journalism mode on the MAPS 3 topic. It's one thing to have an editorial position, and that's fair. It's quite another thing for the Oklahoman to stifle MAPS 3 investigative news reporting on the other, and that's not fair.

I didn't write the article just to carp but also to give the Oklahoman and/or the city (to the extent that it may be involved in the apparent Oklahoman decision for its reporters to chill out on matters involving a MAPS 3 discourse) a cause to pause and give positive reasons to reconsider the effect of the existing course of action. It is quite possible (as was the case with original MAPS) for an editorial position to be maintained on one hand and simultaneously co-exist with objective reporting in the Oklahoman on the other.

I see the existing position of the Oklahoman as being counterproductive to a pro-MAPS 3 resolution and to those of us who really do want MAPS 3 to carry the day on December 8.

Since no one else that I'm aware of was saying this out loud, I was/am merely trying to fill the void since I consider the matter to be of great importance, quite likely of even greater importance than the merits/demerits of the pending MAPS 3 proposal, and that is so whether a voter is pro-or-con or undecided about MAPS 3.

Freedom of the press was incorporated into our constitution for a reason. Real journalism should honor that reason and continue to report the news, regardless of editorial and/or newspaper ownership dispositions.

While I can't speak for others, I'd bet I'm not the sole person enjoying what you're writing.

The city is obviously aware of it as well, to be sending in 'uh, 'cuse me there' e's on it.

I'm likewise having a mondo whiskey tango foxtrot head shakin over the silence of the 4th estate.

It is afterall freakin' October 23. They're better than this, or least they used to be.

While I can't speak for others, I'd bet I'm not the sole person enjoying what you're writing.

The city is obviously aware of it as well, to be sending in 'uh, 'cuse me there' e's on it.

I'm likewise having a mondo whiskey tango foxtrot head shakin over the silence of the 4th estate.

It is afterall freakin' October 23. They're better than this, or least they used to be.
:LolLolLol
Thanks, Kevin, but would you mind restating what you just said, in English? :LolLolLol

Even though I'm a Wellers fan, I'm nonetheless intrigued by what you said about a ...
mondo whiskey tango foxtrot head shakin ...
I try to keep up with the times, it's getting harder as I get older, but that last item totally zoomed over my incredibly shrinking hairless head ... not the head, just the hairs. My concern, of course, is that I've been missing out on something that I'd enjoy knowing more about ... a "mondo whiskey tango foxtrot" ... I've always wanted to be a good dancer ...

Sure Doug

That's where you get so confuzzled by what's happening all you really can do is shake your head really, really hard and exclaim WHAT THE FREAK!
.oO(That's as close an explanation as the filters here will likely permit.)Oo.

Oh. Now I understand. :dizzy: The "mondo whiskey tango foxtrot head shakin" activity is what I must have been doing last night.

Nice analysis Doug! I love this line:


If this address by the mayor was intended to match the foregoing definition, the mayor's and Doug Dawgz interpretive modes are not simpatico.

This whole thing is really a travesty. Very disappointed at the lack of respect for regular citizens being displayed by some of our city leadership.

NEW FLASH! The Oklahoman does a story on MAPS 3, the 1st since the Oklahoman reported that council voted to submit MAPS 3 for vote. My paper version of the Oklahoman was water-logged this morning and I didn't pick up on the story below until David Holt (he having noticed in Doug Dawgz Blog: About Our Principal Bee Watcher (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html)) that I'd said, according to the city's MAPS 3 website that,

and that I said none had yet occurred. When I first wrote that, it was so. I updated the article yesterday and today, saying that fact remained true. When I added those notes yesterday (and reaffirmed them today), it was not.

When I first wrote that (on October 20), I wasn't then aware that the mayor was set to make a talk at a pay-for luncheon ($35 for non-chamber members, $30 if you are) yesterday at the Skirvin, October 21. David sent me an e-mail this evening, noting my omission. Duly noted!

I suppose some might say that this qualifies, after a fashion, as a "regular press conference." You tell me.

Anyway, I missed the Oklahoman's article by Jesse Olivarez (who dat?) in this morning's paper. Read it for yourself here: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/luncheons-map-out-oklahoma-citys-tax-plan-details/article/3410984?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0UhuEEWe V) .

If any real news is contained in that article, other than the fact that the mayor delivered what the article describes as a "short speech" to a chamber-sponsored luncheon at the Skirvin, I'd be hard-pressed to figure out what any such news might be.

Where are the Oklahoman's journalists who would ordinarily cover events such as this?

A sidebar comment to the article reads,


You can leave comments to the article should you wish to, as did I.

If someone wants to give me a comp ticket, sure, I'll go and then report what I hear and see, information which should be available to all voters and not just the MAPS 3 pep club. I have no gripe with the Chamber. I think that it does its job well. But, one shouldn't have to pay 35 bucks to hear what the mayor has got to say about MAPS 3.

If I don't get a comp ticket, I'll save my $35 and wait for more good reporting by the Oklahoman or other respected members of the 4th estate ...You must admit, it's a good way to keep the Riff-Raff out.

I wasn't invited, so I guess you're correct about that.

I wasn't invited, so I guess you're correct about that.What do you want to bet that your chances of being invited are a hell of alot better than mine?

:LolLolLol:LolLolLol:LolLolLol

I do still maintain hope that the Oklahoman will reverse itself and will resurrect its journalism mode on the MAPS 3 topic. It's one thing to have an editorial position, and that's fair. It's quite another thing for the Oklahoman to stifle MAPS 3 investigative news reporting on the other, and that's not fair.

I didn't write the article just to carp but also to give the Oklahoman and/or the city (to the extent that it may be involved in the apparent Oklahoman decision for its reporters to chill out on matters involving a MAPS 3 discourse) a cause to pause and give positive reasons to reconsider the effect of the existing course of action. It is quite possible (as was the case with original MAPS) for an editorial position to be maintained on one hand and simultaneously co-exist with objective reporting in the Oklahoman on the other.

I see the existing position of the Oklahoman as being counterproductive to a pro-MAPS 3 resolution and to those of us who really do want MAPS 3 to carry the day on December 8.

Since no one else that I'm aware of was saying this out loud, I was/am merely trying to fill the void since I consider the matter to be of great importance, quite likely of even greater importance than the merits/demerits of the pending MAPS 3 proposal, and that is so whether a voter is pro-or-con or undecided about MAPS 3.

Freedom of the press was incorporated into our constitution for a reason. Real journalism should honor that reason and continue to report the news, regardless of editorial and/or newspaper ownership dispositions.

When th publisher of the newspaper & The OKC Chamber of Comm. Chairman are the same person, I wouldn't expect much critical journalism.