Dear Readers:
It’s been about nine months now since the St. Petersburg Times purchased the name of Tampa’s most important sports and entertainment venue. Goodbye, Ice Palace. Hello, St. Pete Times Forum.
It is almost unheard of for a news organization to buy the naming rights for a sports facility. At the time, Dr. Ink praised this move as gutsy, a daring thrust into enemy territory. The Times had spent millions over the years to build a strong news presence in Tampa, and now it was planting the flag of its name within spitting distance of the rival Tampa Tribune.
In supporting the move, the Doc did not agree with several of his Poynter colleagues, who argued that this unusual strategy, whatever name recognition it created, would also place the newspaper on slippery ice without a pair of skates. What would happen if a controversy developed involving the business of the St. Pete Times Forum? Could the newspaper cover, with impartiality, the building that has its name on top?
That squeal you just heard is the sound of the rubber hitting the road.
A story on page one of the June 3 edition of the Times (which is owned by The Poynter Institute) describes plans to build a competing amphitheater a few miles from the Forum. “Amphitheater gets green light,” reads the headline. And then the blurb: “Critics say a new concert venue at the state fairgrounds will cut revenue from the St. Pete Times Forum and downtown Tampa businesses.”
The story is written by Bill Varian, who, in Doc’s immodest opinion, covers the controversy with scrupulous neutrality. If it weren’t for the name on the building, there would be no hint of the newspaper’s corporate interests. So, on the news side, the reporters and editors of the Times seem to be working hard to be fair.
But what about the editorial side of the paper? On June 7, the Times’ lead editorial was titled “Incentives on ice.” Here’s the lead: “It would be easy to dismiss the debate over the Tampa Bay Lightning’s money problems as yet another example of the rich crying poverty. But the team’s tax bill, together with the specter of a new amphitheater going up in east Hillsborough County, affect not only the hockey franchise but the fortune of a large swath of downtown Tampa, where taxpayers and developers have invested millions.”
With due diligence, the writer reveals the paper’s interests: (“The arena carries this newspaper’s name as part of a $30-million sponsorship deal between the Times and Palace Sports.”)
Here’s the problem for the Times: Dr. Ink thinks construction of this competing entertainment arena is a bad idea, and there are many good reasons to oppose it, including this: It may threaten the local hockey franchise, which has finally made the playoffs and attracted enthusiastic crowds. The loss of that team and the loss of concert dates might hurt businesses in downtown Tampa, an area that could use a boost.
It’s possible that the Times has marketed itself out of a vigorous position on this issue. Unless the leaders of the Times support construction of this competing facility, against the paper’s self-interest, their editorial opinion may be compromised.
(While the Times Deputy Editor of Editorials, the wise and witty Robert Friedman, recognizes the ticklish place now occupied by Times editorial writers, he points out that no letters or e-mail messages from the public have yet complained about the conflict.)
