Leader refused to interview or even mention any opponents of this “replacement” airport terminal

 
There was another puff piece in the Leader today about how the Airport Authority is trying to push this new terminal idea on people.

When it came to the community’s response to the latest outreach “workshop,” here’s all they wrote:

Resident Emilia Platas attended the workshop to better inform herself and her family who live near the airport about the proposed project. She said she favors the new terminal in the northeast section, but was concerned about how the project would be paid for, what the environmental impacts would be and how it would affect traffic.

Platas said that she probably will not read the entire 3,700-page report and appreciated the workshop for keeping her informed.

Resident Doug Isbell also liked the new terminal in the northeast quadrant, saying that he likes that airport officials are adamant about having only 14 gates.

Talk about marginalizing dissent. The LA Times made a deliberate effort to avoid mentioning any anti-airport position.

This is not journalism. It’s bought-and-paid-for hackwork. Just listen to all of the fake flattery being thrown at the Authority for how great they are in helping to keep people supposedly “informed.” They’re using workshop attendees as stand-ins and stooges for the Man. In the old days (such as the David Silva era of 15-20 years ago) this same paper would have gone out of its way to at least mention an alternate opinion about the proposed project.

This is going to be a very sleazy and dishonest campaign season. Expect lots more blatant one-sidedness.

 

 

 

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Leader refused to interview or even mention any opponents of this “replacement” airport terminal

  1. I wonder if people realize both southwest quadrant projects will have an increased cancer risk for school children and residents in the area over their lifetimes. It’s on page 184 and 201 on the PDF. Quote from 201: “For carcinogenic exposures, operation of the project would result in a maximum increase in incremental cancer risk that would exceed the threshold for a 30-year typical residential exposure period and a 70-year lifetime exposure period. As the maximum impact would exceed the risk threshold of 10 in one million, impacts would be considered significant.”

    • Anonymous 3

      A good reason to favor the NE proposal.

      • Natalie

        In what way would the placement of airplanes closer to Burbank residents be considered a “good reason” to favor…………?
        The info in the EIR assesses the Environmental Impacts.
        Please expand………..

  2. Anonymous 3

    Possibly the Leader could find no opponents at the community meeting. I’ve been to one and there were less than a dozen attendees..

    • Oldtimer

      The Leader seldom if ever covers any comments at the Airport Meetings that don’t come from the Officials or a Press Release.
      When was the last time they printed any comments except from Officials?
      When was the first time?
      Didn’t Chappy sue the bastards to resolve the video issue?
      NO to the $400 + Million Terminal Replacement.

  3. chad

    Good catch BVP. Thank you.

  4. Larry

    The biggest advertiser in the Leader is the City of Burbank, just shows money talks and that with our tax monies the city might not fix our streets or anything else but they sure know how to make themselves very wealthy and control free speech. Money talks and taxes are a rip off

    • semichorus

      The City of Burbank has a history of threatening the Leader with ad pulls whenever the paper gets too uppity.

      McConkey revealed this back in about ’99 or 2000, and they all went apeshit. The case at the time was back when the Leader was accused of giving too MUCH sympathetic coverage to the anti-airport ROAR people.

      One of the female reporters there was at the meeting with Leader staff and a city official, and she heard the actual threat being made (it came from the woman who later became CM after Ovrom). She phoned up McConkey about it in outrage right afterwards and spilled the beans.

  5. Anonymous

    Isn’t the city and the airport about the only advertisers in the Leader now ?

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s