Does the way this was announced bode poorly?

bonwich · PostSep 22, 2010#12010-09-22T15:01+00:00

I was pretty struck by the fact that perhaps the largest civic announcement of the past 40 years broke on this website. What does that say about the competence of the people running the thing?

On the one hand, transparency as part of the process is a very good thing. More than a few local citizens believe that "contests" like this are basically fronts for behind-the-scenes folks to get their way under the guise of "public input."

But the announcement of the winner was one element that should have been media-managed. Instead, clearly the contest organizers botched any semblance of confidentiality agreements with the participants, and the thing dribbled out uncontrolled.

These are the same people who are going to coordinate $300M in fundraising? Not an auspicious beginning.

sirshankalot · PostSep 22, 2010#22010-09-22T15:30+00:00

I can't believe Bobwich has a dark view on this. Although he may be correct, I have Bonwich/pessimism fatigue.

Gets old.

bonwich · PostSep 22, 2010#32010-09-22T15:35+00:00

Ah, yes. Don't question anything. Don't complain. Be a good do-be. That's how to be a perfect St. Louis citizen.

Or perhaps you have a substantive response to the issue.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2010#42010-09-22T15:36+00:00

bonwich wrote:I was pretty struck by the fact that perhaps the largest civic announcement of the past 40 years broke on this website. What does that say about the competence of the people running the thing?

On the one hand, transparency as part of the process is a very good thing. More than a few local citizens believe that "contests" like this are basically fronts for behind-the-scenes folks to get their way under the guise of "public input."

But the announcement of the winner was one element that should have been media-managed. Instead, clearly the contest organizers botched any semblance of confidentiality agreements with the participants, and the thing dribbled out uncontrolled.

These are the same people who are going to coordinate $300M in fundraising? Not an auspicious beginning.

Even with non-disclosure agreements, it's hard to control leaks. We'll see how it plays out.

sirshankalot · PostSep 22, 2010#52010-09-22T18:03+00:00

bonwich wrote:Ah, yes. Don't question anything. Don't complain. Be a good do-be. That's how to be a perfect St. Louis citizen.

Or perhaps you have a substantive response to the issue.

I do. In this day and age, web sites like this break news. See Monica Lewinsky and Drudge. I thought a writer of stltoday.com and co-employee of a cutting edge social-media user like Bernie Miklasz would understand that.

bonwich · PostSep 22, 2010#62010-09-22T18:15+00:00

Uh-huh. Project Runway can keep its victors a secret, but CityArchRiver can't? Speaks well for them.

1) Should have been ONE point of contact with each team and explicit instructions not to tell anyone until the announcement.
2) The fact that Alex could verify the info from all the teams indicates that CityArchRiver's communications arm is utterly incompetent.

Absolutely no excuse for any "leaks." This ain't an anonymous source leaking details of a scandal. This was absolutely controllable (not to mention legally enforceable). The fact that Alex could CALL and confirm with all the teams is just another reflection on the quality of "leadership" in St. Louis.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2010#72010-09-22T18:41+00:00

sirshankalot wrote:
bonwich wrote:Ah, yes. Don't question anything. Don't complain. Be a good do-be. That's how to be a perfect St. Louis citizen.

Or perhaps you have a substantive response to the issue.
I do. In this day and age, web sites like this break news. See Monica Lewinsky and Drudge. I thought a writer of stltoday.com and co-employee of a cutting edge social-media user like Bernie Miklasz would understand that.

Oh.....bad example. You do realize that Drudge didn't break that story, right?

And I do hope you don't really use Drudge for news.

sirshankalot · PostSep 22, 2010#82010-09-22T19:15+00:00

bonwich wrote:Uh-huh. Project Runway can keep its victors a secret, but CityArchRiver can't? Speaks well for them.

1) Should have been ONE point of contact with each team and explicit instructions not to tell anyone until the announcement.
2) The fact that Alex could verify the info from all the teams indicates that CityArchRiver's communications arm is utterly incompetent.

Absolutely no excuse for any "leaks." This ain't an anonymous source leaking details of a scandal. This was absolutely controllable (not to mention legally enforceable). The fact that Alex could CALL and confirm with all the teams is just another reflection on the quality of "leadership" in St. Louis.

It also speaks volumes that the Post couldn't break the story.

innov8ion · PostSep 22, 2010#92010-09-22T19:56+00:00

bonwich wrote:Uh-huh. Project Runway can keep its victors a secret, but CityArchRiver can't? Speaks well for them.

1) Should have been ONE point of contact with each team and explicit instructions not to tell anyone until the announcement.
2) The fact that Alex could verify the info from all the teams indicates that CityArchRiver's communications arm is utterly incompetent.

Absolutely no excuse for any "leaks." This ain't an anonymous source leaking details of a scandal. This was absolutely controllable (not to mention legally enforceable). The fact that Alex could CALL and confirm with all the teams is just another reflection on the quality of "leadership" in St. Louis.

I don't think it matters much. Project Runway has a vested interest to keep secrets in order to maintain viewership which equates to advertising dollars. Outside of saving a little embarassment, what was driving the need for high secrecy in this case? Honestly, I don't think it was a high priority for anyone.

bonwich · PostSep 22, 2010#102010-09-22T19:59+00:00

^^Keep trying. Ethical journalists respect something called an "embargo" when it's placed on advance information. (Alex was under no embargo because no one official had given him advance information, and whoever was coordinating the announcement of the winner was too stupid to tell all the participants that they couldn't go around bragging to their architecture-school buddies.)

PostSep 22, 2010#112010-09-22T20:01+00:00

innov8ion wrote:Project Runway has a vested interest to keep secrets in order to maintain viewership which equates to advertising dollars. Outside of saving a little embarassment, what was driving the need for high secrecy? Honestly, I don't think it was a high priority for anyone.

Wanna bet CityArchRiver spent at least five figures on Friday's announcement ceremony?

innov8ion · PostSep 22, 2010#122010-09-22T20:05+00:00

bonwich wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Project Runway has a vested interest to keep secrets in order to maintain viewership which equates to advertising dollars. Outside of saving a little embarassment, what was driving the need for high secrecy? Honestly, I don't think it was a high priority for anyone.
Wanna bet CityArchRiver spent at least five figures on Friday's announcement ceremony?

In comparison to $300M, five figures isn't that much... I understand you are an eternal cynic, though. Nothing wrong with that...

bonwich · PostSep 22, 2010#132010-09-22T21:04+00:00

innov8ion wrote:In comparison to $300M, five figures isn't that much... I understand you are an eternal cynic, though. Nothing wrong with that...

If expecting professionalism, especially from what's supposed to be the cream of the St. Louis business and civic community, is cynicism, then I suppose I'm a cynic. (And in raising said $300M, if $1M or $10M donors don't get the expected publicity because of similar mishandling, no one is going to like what happens.)

dredger · PostSep 23, 2010#142010-09-23T05:46+00:00

I'm with Bonwich on this one. Their was a good reason why Montsano's name was included in the Friday press conference that now amounts to nothing more then a byline. Who knows, they might be pissed for not getting the good press desired and might consider pulling its support. Alex might have a gotten a good scoop but it does little to further any causes if deep pocket donors walk away.

innov8ion · PostSep 23, 2010#152010-09-23T12:46+00:00

Dredger wrote:I'm with Bonwich on this one. Their was a good reason why Montsano's name was included in the Friday press conference that now amounts to nothing more then a byline. Who knows, they might be pissed for not getting the good press desired and might consider pulling its support. Alex might have a gotten a good scoop but it does little to further any causes if deep pocket donors walk away.

They would be short-sighted if they did. Doubtful and overblown...

Mark Groth · PostSep 23, 2010#162010-09-23T15:39+00:00

I like the fact that the story broke from the people who have been closely following and participating in this contest and the issue of dis-connectivity between the arch and DT. I would never go to the Post or KTVI or St. Louis Magazine or anywhere else to read about this event...it was right here that I kept informed (and entertained) on the subject. I like that the staid, cynical media were scooped. It's kind of like hearing KMOX quote a TMZ report....who's really subject matter expert and following the story? I don't think it'll have any long term negative repercussions on fund raising or moving forward. If it's a little pie in the face of the jounalists, reporters or committee...rightfully deserved.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 23, 2010#172010-09-23T15:59+00:00

Mark Groth wrote:I like the fact that the story broke from the people who have been closely following and participating in this contest and the issue of dis-connectivity between the arch and DT. I would never go to the Post or KTVI or St. Louis Magazine or anywhere else to read about this event...it was right here that I kept informed (and entertained) on the subject. I like that the staid, cynical media were scooped. It's kind of like hearing KMOX quote a TMZ report....who's really subject matter expert and following the story? I don't think it'll have any long term negative repercussions on fund raising or moving forward. If it's a little pie in the face of the jounalists, reporters or committee...rightfully deserved.

Where do you get the idea that the "staid, cynical media" (whatever that is) were scooped? You understand that they may have been informed and asked not to reveal it. As Bonwich noted, that is what ethical journalists do.

That being said, Alex was under no such restrictions (that I know of) and was perfectly within his rights to "break" the story.

I've "broken" a few stories here myself - Confluence Academy on Grand, the closing of the Laurel deal, etc. Had I been asked by the source not to say anything, I would have honored that.

innov8ion · PostSep 23, 2010#182010-09-23T16:05+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Mark Groth wrote:I like the fact that the story broke from the people who have been closely following and participating in this contest and the issue of dis-connectivity between the arch and DT. I would never go to the Post or KTVI or St. Louis Magazine or anywhere else to read about this event...it was right here that I kept informed (and entertained) on the subject. I like that the staid, cynical media were scooped. It's kind of like hearing KMOX quote a TMZ report....who's really subject matter expert and following the story? I don't think it'll have any long term negative repercussions on fund raising or moving forward. If it's a little pie in the face of the jounalists, reporters or committee...rightfully deserved.
Where do you get the idea that the "staid, cynical media" (whatever that is) were scooped? You understand that they may have been informed and asked not to reveal it. As Bonwich noted, that is what ethical journalists do.

I'm not so sure the media was informed beforehand.

Mark Groth · PostSep 23, 2010#192010-09-23T16:22+00:00

I get information here on many topics including this one, well before the printed press, etc.

PostSep 23, 2010#202010-09-23T16:32+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Mark Groth wrote:I like the fact that the story broke from the people who have been closely following and participating in this contest and the issue of dis-connectivity between the arch and DT. I would never go to the Post or KTVI or St. Louis Magazine or anywhere else to read about this event...it was right here that I kept informed (and entertained) on the subject. I like that the staid, cynical media were scooped. It's kind of like hearing KMOX quote a TMZ report....who's really subject matter expert and following the story? I don't think it'll have any long term negative repercussions on fund raising or moving forward. If it's a little pie in the face of the jounalists, reporters or committee...rightfully deserved.
Where do you get the idea that the "staid, cynical media" (whatever that is) were scooped? You understand that they may have been informed and asked not to reveal it. As Bonwich noted, that is what ethical journalists do.

That being said, Alex was under no such restrictions (that I know of) and was perfectly within his rights to "break" the story.

I've "broken" a few stories here myself - Confluence Academy on Grand, the closing of the Laurel deal, etc. Had I been asked by the source not to say anything, I would have honored that.

I've read a lot of cynicism related to the city in the 10 PM news reports and PD articles over the years. I can't believe that anyone who's payed attention to how the main stream media covers the city wouldn't be able to pick up on that too. That's why I made the "cynical" comment. The staid comment comes from the fact that I think there are more interesting and forward looking media outlets than the printed press. I don't mean to offend any newspaper or tv jounalists out there.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 23, 2010#212010-09-23T18:21+00:00

Mark Groth wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Mark Groth wrote:I like the fact that the story broke from the people who have been closely following and participating in this contest and the issue of dis-connectivity between the arch and DT. I would never go to the Post or KTVI or St. Louis Magazine or anywhere else to read about this event...it was right here that I kept informed (and entertained) on the subject. I like that the staid, cynical media were scooped. It's kind of like hearing KMOX quote a TMZ report....who's really subject matter expert and following the story? I don't think it'll have any long term negative repercussions on fund raising or moving forward. If it's a little pie in the face of the jounalists, reporters or committee...rightfully deserved.
Where do you get the idea that the "staid, cynical media" (whatever that is) were scooped? You understand that they may have been informed and asked not to reveal it. As Bonwich noted, that is what ethical journalists do.

That being said, Alex was under no such restrictions (that I know of) and was perfectly within his rights to "break" the story.

I've "broken" a few stories here myself - Confluence Academy on Grand, the closing of the Laurel deal, etc. Had I been asked by the source not to say anything, I would have honored that.
I've read a lot of cynicism related to the city in the 10 PM news reports and PD articles over the years. I can't believe that anyone who's payed attention to how the main stream media covers the city wouldn't be able to pick up on that too. That's why I made the "cynical" comment. The staid comment comes from the fact that I think there are more interesting and forward looking media outlets than the printed press. I don't mean to offend any newspaper or tv jounalists out there.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that the Post Dispatch is out to destroy the city.

Mark Groth · PostSep 23, 2010#222010-09-23T19:53+00:00

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that the Post Dispatch is out to destroy the city.

Um, I don't know about all tha. I assume the PD's main motivation is to sell papers and advertisements and sometimes negative stories get more attention/press than positive ones...just ask the 10 o clock news. It gets old after awhile.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 23, 2010#232010-09-23T20:10+00:00

Mark Groth wrote:
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that the Post Dispatch is out to destroy the city.

Um, I don't know about all tha. I assume the PD's main motivation is to sell papers and advertisements and sometimes negative stories get more attention/press than positive ones...just ask the 10 o clock news. It gets old after awhile.

You missed the point - there are (were?) people on this forum who really, truly, honestly believed that the PD was out to destroy the city.

innov8ion · PostSep 23, 2010#242010-09-23T21:53+00:00

^ Does this really have anything to do with the original topic, CS?

bonwich · PostSep 24, 2010#252010-09-24T18:35+00:00

Mark Groth wrote:I get information here on many topics including this one, well before the printed press, etc.

So do I.