CON GAMES: Local Paper Tissue-Thin In Museum Rant

September 9th, 2008 at 08:30pm Michael Conniff 2

The powers-that-be in Aspen—and you know who you are—are determined to see every issue through the prism of “us” versus “them.”

The “us” in question is the poor working slob with no money, those who manage a life only through the largesse of the Aspen City Council and the blessing of the local newspapers—and decry the efforts and achievements of anyone who has done anything with their lives, also known as “them.”

The latest manifestation of this patent absurdity can be seen in the reaction to the Aspen Art Museum’s decision to hire an architect in hopes of one day convincing the City of Aspen to allow for a new museum. Now there are plenty of reasons to hire an architect—particularly a world-class architect like Shigeru Ban—early in the process. That eminently reasonable decision is not a commitment to build and is not in any way a presumption on the part of the museum that Ban will actually get a shot at the Zupancis-Galena property that is part of the 2006 Civic Master Plan. We should also point out that the Aspen Art Museum plans to build the structure, if it gets that far, with nothing but private funds.

But the facts on the ground did not stop Curtis Wackerle of the Aspen Daily News from lifting his leg against the idea with almost nothing to back him up. Consider the newspaper story entitled “New Museum Catches Critics.” The first two sentences indicate the slant that is sure to follow: “A downtown facility for the Aspen Art Museum is not likely to come to fruition without a public vote. Some residents in the community aren’t satisfied that a new building for the Aspen Art Museum is appropriate as the city continues a public process to vet what is now called the Zupancis-Galena (ZG) Master Plan.”

All that would be well and good if the story in any way backed up the twin contentions. Yes, in the story City Attorney John Worcester says it will come to a vote but no other evidence is presented to confirm the story’s premise or to indicate that getting by without a vote is “not likely.” As for those dissatisfied residents, one can eventually find “Aspenite Phyllis Bronson” as the one resident (singular) who remains unconvinced on the record that the museum on the Z-G property may not be a great idea.

According to the story, “some expressed concern about the art museum’s having hired an architect to begin preliminary work analyzing the site. The citizens of Aspen should have an opportunity to vote their preference on a plan to allow a new art museum on publicly owned land in a prime location, said some citizens, many of whom were reluctant to be identified.”

The story continues: “Bronson and those of a like mind are determined to put the art museum, as well as the county office building, before voters.”

The opponents of the Aspen Art Museum—if they exist at all—were presumably afraid to go public for fear they might be flogged by a Jasper Johns flag. Or perhaps “those of like mind” were too busy banding together with “some citizens” to field a basketball team.

This story is about one thing, plain and simple: the reporter’s desire to pigeonhole the museum as “them,” an elitist institution not worthy of moving up the hill to downtown. In point of fact, absolutely everything the museum does is free, no City money will be needed, and new museum could provide a focal point for programming from a slew of non-profits. But those are facts that get in the way of a good story.

Here’s a novel reportorial concept: quote the “residents” by name and give supporters of the museum equal time. If the local newspaper goes down that road there’s no way out except to continue to commit journalism, rather than raking the museum over the coals with evidence that is tissue-thin at best and insulting and insupportable at worst.