From today's
Tuesday Takes:
Available data call into "serious question" the claim by Official Pittsburgh that the region enjoyed a $35 million economic boost from September's Group of 20 economic summit. That's according to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. In fact, data show RAD tax numbers for September 2009 were actually below those of September 2008 by nearly 3 percent. "There is simply no evidence that ... retailers, restaurants, etc., in aggregate enjoyed an above-normal September level of sales" during the summit. If one were to factor in the total costs associated with the G-20, anyone care to bet any overall gains were de minimis?
Again no mention of the financial support of the Allegheny Institute by the owner of the Trib. Instead of redoing all the work, I'll just cut and paste what I wrote
only one month ago:
No mention of the $375,000 in grant money ($125K in 2006, 2007 and 2008) from the Allegheny Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Or the $360,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $250K in 2008) from the Carthage Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Or the $235,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $125K in 2007) from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
For those keeping score that's $970,000 worth of support over the last 3 years and no mention of it when Scaife's editorial page quotes the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.
As I wrote back then, the circle-jerk continues.
9 comments:
Will any journalist or newspaper in this town simply just tell the truth about the economy in Pittsburgh and stop trying to put lipstick on a pig!
@BigMac..
Uuhh, I believe that is the thrust of the trib's story, but here you have a liberal blogger that is dismissing the story simply because of some past events. I'd say this liberal blogger is one who is trying to put lipstick on a pig.
I would posit that the $35M figure was pulled out of thin air. The fact that RAD revenues were down would strongly imply that there was limited impact of the G20. The G20 was much ado about nothing. Yawn.
Lipstick on a pig????
HOW DARE YOU INSULT SARAH PALIN???
I haven't seen any numbers. Just asking a question here regarding the report.
Is there any mention of what RAD revenues would have been without the G20? How about a graph of the trend?
That is, are RAD revenues down in general and possibly would have been down much greater if without the G20? Comparing absolute numbers year over year is meaningless without context. Maybe there was context; I'm just not seeing any in the discussions.
Then again, without context it is way easier to spin numbers to your own political leanings.
As always, CM is changing the subject.
The blog post was NOT about the details of the Allegheny Institute's report. I had nothing to say about the report it self.
If you read it c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you would have seen that the blog post IS about the crass conflict of interest appearing, yet again, in Richard Mellon Scaife's vanity news project.
Learn to read, you'll look less like an idiot.
Just because the owner may support the Allegheny Institute doesn't explicitely mean the Editorial Board is in cahoots.
Prove it, Dayvoe.
Typical liberal approach.. throw out sh*t and innuendo...
You're a "one trick pony" with respect to Scaife and the Trib... Post-Gazette - Good. Scaife and Trib - Bad.
Oh, how's that Hopey Chnagey thingy working out for ya? Huh?
CM:
Scaife controls the foundations that gave all that money to the Allegheny Institute. Scaife owns the Trib. The Trib's editorial board quotes the Institute. Both benefit from the exposure and both are supported Scaife.
And none of that cozy arrangement is mentioned in the editorials.
Where is the innuendo?
You know, CM, you can question the relevance of Dayvoe's pretty narrow point, that the Trib is not doing a good job of disclosing possible conflicts of interest, but I don't think you can (successfully) question it's validity. That said, throwing in the line about "that Hopey Chnagey thingy working out for ya?" totally undermines *your* validity. You have found the way to relegate yourself to the level of a typical know nothing conservative, instead of an intelligent critic of the administration (or this blog).
Post a Comment