I found out on Monday that in 2008-2009, the Grand Opera House management has expended approximately $6,000 in local media advertising. One can only imagine how many dollars have gone to local corporate media since 1990 (the Northwestern's former advertising manager lists "Grand Opera House Playbill" as one of her accomplishments), when the Grand Opera House Foundation assumed responsibility for managing and promoting the facility.
With Craig's List and other Internet sources pretty much dismantling the corporate press' (especially print media) monopoly on classified advertising, things are getting desperate for the corporatistas. Locally, Gannett argued strenuously for private management of the Leach Amphitheatre--without ever bothering to communicate to readers that PMI was an ad client.
The same nonsense is now at work in the debate regarding how to fund repairs to the Grand Opera House. On Sunday, the editorial writers tell us that the City Council (especially Mr. Esslinger and I) face a "defining" vote at our next meeting. Here's the intro:
Make no mistake. The Oshkosh Common Council under the leadership of Mayor Paul Esslinger and Deputy Mayor Tony Palmeri will be defined by the outcome of the vote on repairs for the historic Grand Opera House. The question the pair face is this: "Do you want to be known as the council that gutted the Grand?"
Hmm . . . let's cut through the Gannett speak, shall we?:
Make no mistake. The Oshkosh Common Council under the leadership of Mayor Paul Esslinger and Deputy Mayor Tony Palmeri will be defined by the outcome of the vote on repairs for the historic Grand Opera House. The question the pair face is this: "Do you want to be known as the council that gutted Gannett's commercial relationship with an advertising client?"
The now defunct water tower was every bit the historic treasure that the Grand Opera House was/is, and based on communications I received from citizens that structure seemed to have as many fans. Yet the vote failing to preserve it was not "defining." Why? Because the Tower and its supporters didn't do enough corporate media advertising?
What do Gannett's ethical principles say about all of this? They claim that "We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers, and advertisers."
What's really sad is that Gannett has effectively removed itself from having any constructive role in the debate about how best to save the Grand Opera House. Instead of reporting and editorializing intelligently about models for managing historic structures, pros and cons of city vs. private ownership of historic structures, etc., the paper chooses to engage in crass and self-serving bloviation that seems designed to intimidate and shame Councilors into supporting their business agenda.
I don't expect that this Council will be intimidated, and I also KNOW that the private sector is taking the Council's challenge to step up the fundraising for the facility very seriously. I'm confident that a compromise can be worked out that will satisfy taxpayers, Grand supporters and Grand management. Too bad it has to be done with the corporate media serving an obstructionist and self-serving role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Tony,
I think your need to look at all the details might sometimes lead you somewhat paranoid conclusions.
The water tower vote was not a defining vote because it was not previously put to a citywide referendum to buy and renovate the building. It also did not serve as a location for families to take in cultural events. As far as I know, it did not make it on to the state historical registry.
I was a very muge fan of the water tower. I am sad to see that it is now gone. But to say the only reason why the Northwestern is backing the saving of the Grand is because of $6,000 in yearly ad revenues? Come on!
If it is true that there is a contract that states the city will pay building repairs, it is the city's responsibility to step up and do what's right.
Aerque,
I don't think that the water tower vote was a defining vote. And yes, I do believe that $6,000 in ad revenues per year is enough for corporate media to take certain stands. But it's really more about transparency (or lack thereof). If a media source chooses to frame an issue as a "defining vote," ought they not at least acknowledge that the vote in question would benefit a client? Especially when the media source in question has an ethical code in place suggesting they would do just that?
If the city alone should pay for building repairs, should we then turn down the $500,000 from that state? Or the $5,000 from the State Historical Society? Those moneys are being made available because of a realization that local dollars are tight and it's just not realistic or fair to expect locals to fund the entire project.
But I think the bigger issue, one that has received zero play in the local mainstream press, is whether the model that's been used to support the Grand since 1990 has worked. It hasn't. The building was allowed to fall into this level of disrepair because the model we are working under almost forces the city and the Grand Opera House Foundation to "look the other way" when it comes to the repair needs of the building. The city is motivated to look the other way because, as we've learned from the insurance carrier madness of the last few years, we can only be liable for damages when we have knowledge of flaws. That's why Mr. Rohloff was forced to close the Grand down the moment the truss issue was discovered. Is it not disturbing to you that a problem that could easily have resulted in the collapse of the ceiling on a crowd was only discovered in the context of placing a sprinkler system in the building for a lounge area addition? Does anyone honestly think that the trusses only became a problem in the last year or so?
The Opera House Foundation is motivated to look that other way because, given the fact that the city cannot realistically give more than 60 or so thousand dollars a year to the facility, the foundation would be put in a position of having to go to the city and compete with funds for roads, library, parks, etc. etc. They know that that is a losing proposition.
We need to look at how other historic opera houses in the state and region are run. The corporate media could do a huge service by doing the leg work to find out how other towns have been able to maintain strong opera houses without city ownership of the facilities.
Tony,
I think a more likely scenario for the editorial is that they are outraged, along with many of us, that you & the council are taking this approach with the Grand. That you place such little value on its place in the community is just plain disappointing. I guess voting in the referendum was just a waste of time.
And before you start going on about "times are tough," tell me, why wasn't the city putting a little aside each year for a "rainy day fund?" Not just for the Grand, but for any unanticipated major expenses like this? Buildings need repair. Things happen. To close your eyes and pretend nothing like this will come up isn't really the best management, is it?
Of course the trusses have been deteriorating for years. But in this case, their condition was missed until recently because you need to get up into the ceiling infrastructure to see the problem. That just doesn't happen during the course of normal events. The only way this would have been found earlier is through a rigorous structural inspection. You can't look away from something you can't see.
But I appreciate your concern that things like this can go unnoticed for years (we should just be happy it was caught before something bad happened). I look forward to your motion at the next council meeting to set up ongoing structural inspections of all city owned buildings. I think a five year rotation ought to do it.
P.S.: If you want a nearby example, the PAC in Appleton is not owned by the city. But the city does contribute about a half million dollars annually to its operation ($490K according to the PAC's last IRS form 990).
Tony:
Support the Grand.
I hate the ONW, too. But c'mon a multi billion dollar corp (Gannet) is going to focus on a $6,000 income item? You are grasping at straws.
Vote yes. The Grand is a jewel. Apart from the fact the city is contracturally obliged to fix the thing, it is something we in the city can be proud of because of the events held there.
When all of us are back on campus, please let me bring you over to the basement at Polk. We've some great faculty buried down there who teach logic.
Doug,
It's the transparency, not the dollar amount! (although that is fairly large too if you ad it up over the years).
True story: I was wondering why a local corporate radio personality, who typically portrays himself as a "fiscal conservative," was leading the charge on Grand Repairs. Found out from another personality at the same station that the Grand are one of this person's ad clients.
Logic Doug! Logic!
Post a Comment