That raging lover’s quarrel between Mayor Bredesen and The Tennessean has apparently ceased. Last Sunday, the daily endorsed Bredesen’s Dell deal, less than one month after solemnly reporting that the costs of relocating the PC manufacturer exceeded the benefits by more than $70 million.
For weeks, The Tennessean heavily promoted its analysis of the incentive-laden package, which it portrayed as fraught with unforeseen expenses. In turn, skittish Council members began to reconsider their support of the deal, and the paper proudly reported their wafflings as signs that its analysis had teeth. The Tennessean also seemed to relish its first public spat with the testy mayor, who denounced the analysis on more than one occasion as “dead wrong.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to a showdown. The Tennessean caved—breaking up really is hard to do—and gushingly supported the deal. The morning daily wrote:
“After weighing the various factors—the traffic, the incentive package, the direct and indirect costs and benefits to the city, the employment opportunities, the long-term effect on the work force, the broadening of the region’s economic base—this newspaper believes that Nashville should seize this opportunity.”
This makes no sense. Either the paper is flat-out rejecting its own self-lauded analysis of the deal, or it’s standing by the study but thinks it’s OK for the city to waste bucket-loads of cash to lure a Fortune 500 company. Which one is it, guys?
From the start, there were problems with The Tennessean’s analysis. For one, in calculating the indirect costs of the deal, it foolishly assumed that an influx of workers and their families would cause Metro’s budget to balloon by a directly proportional amount. Then, to bolster this seriously immature study, the paper reported that the mayor’s own economist, Reuben Kyle, agreed with it. Not true. In a mega-blow to the study’s credibility, Kyle later told the Scene and The Tennessean he does not endorse it. That, seemingly, was the breaking point.
It would be refreshing for The Tennessean to admit that its analysis wasn’t a fair or accurate way to evaluate a bulky, complicated, mess of an arrangement like the Dell deal. Hell, we all make mistakes. But instead, the paper’s editorial writers gloated that they “added greatly to the public debate over this proposal.” Actually, they’ve done nothing of the sort. They’ve just obscured an already confusing deal.
No Pain, No Gain
While The Tennessean’s notoriously left-wing editorial board was sucking up to a corporate giant, they missed a great opportunity to interview mayoral candidate Murray Philip. In fact, while the board’s members talked with main candidates Bill Purcell, Richard Fulton, and Jay West, and even with JV candidate Richard Frank, they did not invite Philip. Why not? The cantankerous school board member pledged not to raise property taxes for four years, and that apparently drew the ire of the board’s bleeding hearts.
“The only point of these meetings is for endorsement and if a candidate has no chance to be endorsed based on his previous record I think it’s dishonest of us to go through the motions,” says Sandra Roberts, the paper’s managing editor of opinion. “He has staked out several positions that we are inalterably opposed to.”
You would think, however, that the paper would want to talk with Philip to better understand his controversial, if oft-sensible, views. Unlike the obscure and unimpressive Frank, Philip has credibility. On the school board, he represents one-ninth of the county. He’s led the debate on issues from core curriculum to school desegregation. And unlike the Big Three, he opposes the Dell deal, calling it “corporate welfare.” No one is saying The Tennessean has to endorse Philip, but it’s unfair not to give him a chance to speak. Aren’t liberals supposed to be open-minded?
Irby's Vida Loca
In what is described by both parties as a mutual decision, former Nashville Banner publisher Irby Simpkins has stepped down as the chairman of the board at EdgeNet Media. Last spring, EdgeNet sold its Internet service provider component to focus on the lucrative area of e-commerce, and Simpkins left as part of the company’s restructuring.
“It was a mutual, mutual decision,” stresses company president Tim Choate, who will replace Simpkins on the board.
While Choate, who founded EdgeNet, had nothing but praise for Simpkins, he did hint that Simpkins might have been too busy to fulfill his board responsibilities. “I think certainly time considerations are a lot of it. He has a number of obligations including his involvement in various charities.”
Simpkins agrees. “The simple truth is that I’ve got a lot of stuff going on right now,” he notes. In fact, for the former publisher, life after the Banner has been one big adventure. Last fall, Simpkins joined the board of the Red Cross and is helping to raise money for the charity. In addition, he spent time in Alaska, recently concluding—you guessed it—a bear-hunting trip.
Says Simpkins, who was reportedly $25 million richer after the sale of the Banner to Gannett, “It’s been an evolution. After the Banner was a time of thought, grief. It’s been kind of an adjustment to my new life.” Sounds like he’s getting along just fine, thank you.
