[1]: http://www.intercognition.net/MplwdCL/documents/NewsStories/KSTP_Hearing/KSTPresponsetoHjelle.htm
[savemaplewood.com](http://savemaplewood.com), though biased, is the go-to place for Maplewood new items concerning the contentious situation surrounding the Maplewood City Council and city administration. Of course, I’m the go-to guy if you want to add in a little fairness to the mix. :)
A bit ago, they [posted KSTP-TVs response][1] to Maplewood City Council member Erik Hjelle’s complaint against them for their TV news report on the city council. The complaint was [upheld by the Minnesota News Council](http://newscouncil.news-council.org/index.php?p=28). My posts concerning that story can be found [here](http://www.kpmartin.com/index.php?s=KSTP). I’ve devoted plenty of space to questioning that story. I thought it would be fair to bring you their response, too.
> You will see in the e-mail exchanges below both reporter Jo Ann Bemoras and news director Chris Berg offered to meet with council member Erik Hjelle and update our reporting on both the Gladstone project and the city council. Mr Hjelle did not respond to these offers. You will also note that Mr. Hjelle wrote to us that he was not representing the city in his correspondence with us, but two days later filed a complaint with the Minnesota News Council and apparently persuaded another city council member and the mayor to join the complaint.
>
> It certainly was and remains Mr. Trippler’s opinion that city projects were “in limbo.” As Mr. Hjelle points out, Mr. Trippler is a member of both the planning commission and the environmental commission. He is entitled to his opinion and it is correct for us to share that with viewers. It was in that context that we also used the term “stalled.” Sources in city administration and the development community that we spoke to used that term. We feel it is an accurate description of the effect the new council’s actions had on this major project. It has been stalled for months and remains so.
>
> In the intervening weeks since the story aired 5 Eyewitness News has tried to determine if the term “stalled” is still warranted or if the story should be updated. That has proven to be more difficult than one would expect. Mr. Hjelle has not responded to our offer to do a follow up story. A call to the interim city manager went unanswered. The city public works directors tells us he is forbidden to talk to us about the project. A voice message left with the city clerk has not been returned. A Google search for information about the July 20th news conference referred to by Mr Hjelle returns nothing. A look at the Maplewood Web site shows the information on Gladstone has not been updated since March 2006. A phone conversation with the consultant that was co-coordinating the Gladstone project yielded some information. The money and terms for the contract with that consultant ran out months ago. That is why the Web site is not updated. The consultant understands city staff may have been directed to update the contractual arrangement, but that has not happened yet.
>
> Mr Hjelle makes three main points as signs of progress on the Gladstone project. A closer examination reveals something else. It is true that city staff has asked the Metropolitan Council for $2.5 million. However Bonnie Kollodge of the Met Council reports this: “Maplewood’s proposal is 1 of 23 projects remaining under consideration for Livable Communities (demonstration) grant. 7 projects are no longer in contention after first scoring round by the advisory committee. Council has $8.8 million to award this year for such projects. Total request of 23 remaining projects comes to $27.1 million.” Also Kollodge reports the decision to award some, all or none of the money for Gladstone won’t be made till late this year or early next year.
>
> Mr Hjelle accurately states the city council voted 5-1 for Phase I of the Gladstone Plan. However the Phase I of the Gladstone Plan is ephemeral at best. The master plan is not in place, there are no design standards and currently there are no developers.
>
> A close examination of his other point reveals it is also a red herring. Mr Hjelle refers to “150 units in the Gladstone area.” First off the city has apparently not received any application from the developer for this project. Secondly this project is only in the Gladstone area it is not part of the Gladstone plan.
>
> In sum, we remain prepared to update the story whenever we can obtain reliable information from the city staff. However city staff appear to be intimidated into silence by the fact that two of their colleagues have been fired in the weeks since the political power on the council shifted and another has left. Meanwhile the Gladstone plan is a shadow of its original scope and is making no discernable progress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Hill, News Manager Special Projects, 5 Eyewitness News
> (Ed: I didn’t include the emails. They can be found at the link above.)
Very interesting. First, even though I can completely understand not wanting to talk with KTSP-TV after having been on the receiving end of a poorly done story, I think that more communication, not less, is how to battle it. If a reporter wants to interview you, say yes and record the whole interview yourself and release it should there be unfair treatment. (I wonder if reporters would tolerate such scrutiny and accountability.)
But notice something about the response? It’s interesting! It has what may be *facts*! Research seems to have been done. If only the story which aired that night had some substance like that, I personally may not have had a complaint.
But to quite seriously ask a clichéd question: How much did KSTP know and when did they know it?
In their response, KSTP appears to know who Dale Trippler is…
> Mr. Trippler is a member of both the planning commission and the environmental commission…
Good job! A point [I made](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/26/it-seems-the-maplewood-city-council-attention-has-waned/), actually. But in the story that aired, Trippler was merely a “Maplewood Resident”. This is exactly one of the things I mentioned via [email to reporter Jo Ann Bemoras](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/26/it-seems-the-maplewood-city-council-attention-has-waned/#more-135). Knowing who Trippler is and how he’s interacted with the current Maplewood administration is very useful to better understanding the story over there.
Didn’t they do all of this wonderful Googling *before* the story aired, or was it just in response to Hjelle’s challenge?
It was trivial for me to find out about Mr. Trippler and many other interesting things, despite the terrific challenge that…
> …city staff appear to be intimidated into silence…
So? Investigate. Report. Whip up a little Freedom of Information action (or whatever the city equivalent of that is).
If, at the time the story was aired, they knew as much as the response above would indicate, then it seems they did a very poor job of sharing known and relevant information. If they did not know that much, it seems they aired a story after having done little research. Either one doesn’t seem great.
The comments concerning the Met Council seem very odd. I’ll bet every city who’s made it past the first cut would call that progress. Maplewood may very well get some or all that they’re asking for. And the “red herring” may be development that could provide tax dollars that may be intended to help the Gladstone project move without having to go hat-in-hand to the Met Council.
Maybe not, of course. But it seems like KSTP-TV wants to just play one side here. And even if it’s entirely true, it’s *still* only one side of the story.
This seemed interesting to me, too:
> However the Phase I of the Gladstone Plan is ephemeral at best. The master plan is not in place, there are no design standards and currently there are no developers.
Well, let’s skip past the news manager’s authoritative sounding judgement that it’s “ephemeral at best”. Didn’t Mr. Trippler have had a hand in developing the ephemeral “Phase 1?” He’s plainly willing to talk: ask him about it?
But the larger issue, and something that could have actually been interesting to the story in question, is that perhaps the new majority think that the Gladstone project was going in a bad direction. If so, it would be pretty unlikely that they’d want to “stay on track”. That could have been Bemoras’ story. What’s going on with that development? Does the new leadership wish to take things in a new direction? Why? Is that a core issue dividing the council? What would changing direction mean? What would it cost? It certainly would explain, for example, an irate Mr. Trippler, if his plans dear to him are now being set aside.
Look, at some point 1940s Germany’s “plan [was] a shadow of its original scope and [was] making no discernable progress,” but most folks consider that a good thing. Change or stasis alone are not really interesting. History, context and details are.
Hjelle’s complaint was “that KSTP-TV inaccurately reported that Maplewood City Council had stalled progress on an area redevelopment plan”. Well, they did. It was obvious. Regardless of difficulties, only one point of view was shown. KSTP-TV seems to want to play this in two ways:
* “Well, we just didn’t know any better and aired what we had.”
* “Well, it *was* stalled. But it wasn’t newsworthy or even possible to share any perspective other than those who dislike that it was stalled.”
Do either of those perspectives make you feel confident you’re getting the best, most informative news coverage possible when watching KSTP-TV?
And talk about a red herring… KSTP-TV didn’t need Hjelle’s permission to follow-up or come clean or clarify. They could have just run a “here’s more information about the Gladstone development we reported on…” (I hope they aired a good followup and I just missed it.) Do they only air balanced stories if the “other side” complain and then agree to terms on further stories? What do I mean by “agree to terms?” From KSTP-TV News Director [Chris Berg’s](http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S272.html?cat=28) email to Hjelle:
> …if you want to sit down and speak on-camera about these issues and **others being faced by the city council**… (emphasis mine)
Gosh, ain’t that swell. Come and subject yourself to, well, whatever we want, and we’ll give you a chance for your side to be heard on the issue we’ve already mis-characterized. If it makes it past editing. How benevolent and even-handed. Why not just address the matter at hand, and the follow up another time with other issues?
Y’know what’s funny? I like KSTP-TV. I tend to watch their news more than any other. But here I am looking at this story that landed on my doorstep [months ago](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/20/a-tiny-peek-at-local-politics/), and it just bothers me that a schnook like me can come along and know that what I’m reading or seeing is incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong. From sources I used to think were reliable. I thought news was news. I guess I’m finally seeing that news is both more and less than I ever thought.
He’s a bit confused and sad.