Sorry, but the adjectives stay

Every so often, we get challenged on our newsroom policies and how

we refer to people, things or groups. Recently, I have had occasions

in which that has happened and so I’d like to take the topic up in

this week’s report. First on the docket are my good friends who call

themselves part of the Greenlight movement in Newport Beach.

Greenlight, as many of you know, stands for a couple of things.

Foremost, it is the name of the group that was successful in passing

Measure S, the initiative that forces any development that exceeds

certain thresholds within the city’s general plan to be approved by a

majority citywide vote. Passage of that initiative resulted in the

aforementioned law known as Greenlight. Now the argument being waged

is that the Daily Pilot is unfairly characterizing the Greenlight

crowd because we refer to the movement as “slow growth.” What the

proponents of the law/movement prefer to say is they are for

“responsible growth,” or “beneficial growth” or “anti-abusive

growth.” But as one of my colleagues noted, those are even more

loaded terms, and if we used any of those wouldn’t we be implying

endorsement of Greenlight’s cause? So what about the term slow

growth? Doesn’t that mean that we’ve created an opinion about

Greenlight? Well, yes and no. The words beneficial or responsible are

very subjective. They mean different things to different people. But

the word slow is pretty much understood by everyone to mean one

thing. It’s not good or bad, just slow. And no, it is not how you

best describe editors either. Seriously though, Greenlight gets this

descriptor because in truth, that is the end game of the law the

group passed. It has slowed down growth. Just ask the powers that be

at the Dunes or the Koll Co. or even Sutherland Talla, which is

hoping to build a hotel on the Balboa Peninsula that could very well

be slowed down or even stopped by Greenlight. Sure, George Jeffries

and Phil Arst and Allan Beek and Tom Hyans and Evelyn Hart and Jean

Watt and other Greenlight stalwarts whom I know and respect and like

very much will tell you and me that they don’t want to stop all

growth, and they are right. But I’m not sure how they can deny that

Greenlight itself was hatched as a way to do what the ghost of City

Councils past had failed to do, keep development in check. Anyone who

plays chess knows, when you are in check, you don’t have a lot of

moves you can make. So, what do we call this group? “The Greenlight

organization favors beneficial growth and deplores abusive growth,”

wrote Jeffries, a Greenlight leader, in an e-mail to me last week.

“Beneficial growth is: a) growth within the general plan which is

planned for in the circulation element; b) growth requiring

amendments to the general plan which is environmentally sound (a

positive EIR); promptly mitigates its traffic increase; does not

increase usage of John Wayne Airport; financially contributes to the

city; and does not hinder views or usage of our beaches, bays and

estuaries. The terms “no growth” and “slow growth” are inappropriate

because you imply that Greenlight wants all growth to slow or stop,

he continued. This is not the case, and you are mis-identifying and

slurring Greenlight to thousands of readers every time you use the

phrase.”

“Challenge yourself as a wordsmith to apply the most descriptive

terminology, preferably without adjectives,” he wrote. “Do not imply

that either the organization or the law is not desirable. I am not a

journalist, but if I were, I would tell my students that one good

fact is worth 10 adjectives. Let the reader judge from the nouns

rather than the adjectives.” That’s a powerful argument, don’t you

think? So I put the question to my brain trust of editors here at the

newspaper and unfortunately for Jeffries and the rest of the

Greenlight crowd, the answer to leaving off the adjective to describe

the group was a resounding, and not very slow, NO. Here’s why:

Newspapers deal with economy of words. We don’t have a lot of room to

describe groups that readers may not have familiarity with.

Greenlight, so far, is not a household name. Even if it was, stories

should be written with the expectation that someone new in town can

pick up the paper and know what we’re talking about. Pretend we are

writing about Greenpeace and you’ve never heard of them. Wouldn’t you

expect at some time we need to describe them as an environmental

group? What about the National Right to Life League, aren’t they

anti-abortion? Or the NRA, aren’t they a pro-gun organization? What

about this new Newport Beach Taxpayers group? Once we figure out

their agenda, shouldn’t we describe them as a pro-business or

pro-development group? Readers deserve to know the agenda of groups,

especially those political in nature, to make decisions or come to

conclusions about whether or not they deserve support. And what of

the argument that our terminology implies Greenlight wants all growth

to slow or stop? Jeffries points out that only 1% of the development

in the city is affected by Greenlight hurdles. But there’s an

explanation for that. For the most part, the city is already built

out. There is not a lot of places for developers to expand. So

therefore, that 1% probably represents the areas in which growth can

occur. Finally, Jeffries opines that since Greenlight is now the

official law of the land in Newport and part of the City Charter, the

Daily Pilot, by editorializing against Greenlight, and allowing

letters by the Chamber of Commerce or others to run criticizing the

law, is demeaning the law and the citizens who voted it for it. My

response to that is that newspapers must maintain independence from

all factions. While the newspapers official opinion, often revealed

in our Editorials on our Forum pages, is opposed to Greenlight, we

allow viewpoints from all perspectives to debate the issue all the

time. And just because something is the law doesn’t make it

sacrosanct. I don’t mean to compare Greenlight with slavery, but

slavery once was the law of the land in the United States. But that

didn’t stop newspapers and others back then from pointing out its

evils. We all know the end result of that. So while we promise to be

careful on just how we identify groups or people with political

agendas, we also have a duty to our readers to make those agendas

clear.

* * *

On a similar topic, a reader called in and wanted to know why we

identified a letter writer as the partner of Costa Mesa City

Councilwoman Libby Cowan. This one is easy. The letter writer,

Rebecca Chadwick, had written in to complain about what she believed

was excessive coverage of Councilman Gary Monahan, who just happens

to sit on the same dais as Cowan. Rebecca Chadwick is not just an

average citizen with a gripe. For us to have made it seem that way

would have been the height of deception. We try our best to filter

out and verify letters. Still, I’m sure readers with political axes

to grind are able from time to time to get their letters published in

our paper, without identifying their agendas. But we do keep a

lookout for that and I urge letter writers to avoid such dishonesty.

Still, if you have a different perspective, I’d like to hear your

opinions on these policies. Just drop me a line at the number or

email below.

* TONY DODERO is the editor. He can be reached at (949)574-4258

or via e-mail at tony.dodero@latimes.com.