KNWA ‘starts the discussion’ about Bikes, Babes and Bling by reading Monday’s newspaper | Ink By the Byte
Banner, Ink By the Byte, Opinion — By Christopher Spencer on November 25, 2009 at 1:22 am
By Christopher Spencer
Ozarks Unbound
I don’t often pick on television news stations publicly (there’s little sport in it), but Tuesday night’s lead story on KNWA by reporter Aaron Nolan about public opposition to Bikes, Babes and Bling was remarkably superficial.
It resulted in a pure ‘He said, She said’ story between Fayetteville alderman Matthew Petty and Marilyn Heifner, director of the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission.
Petty spoke against the new festival and his opposition appeared as basically a rail against the sound of so many motorcycles landing in Fayetteville in July. Heifner spoke in favor of the festival, describing it as a gentler version of Bikes, Blues and BBQ where women are likely to be driving smaller, less noisy motorbikes than in the full-blown September version.
An interesting side note. Heifner was instrumental last month in getting the kibosh placed on a dog boarding facility on Old Farmington Road near several hotels. Her reasoning: Too much noise.
KNWA’s story felt devoid of context and understanding from Nolan’s opening lines about starting the discussion – which actually began online at least a week ago with a Facebook group and reached print Monday morning in a story by Northwest Arkansas Times‘ reporter Skip Descant – to anchor Matt Turner’s impromptu editorial at the end:
“So, no matter what you think at least it is for a good cause,” Turner said about the new festival’s charitable goal.
“That’s a good way to put it,” answered Nolan.
Spoken like true media sponsors of Bikes, Blues and BBQ, the new festival’s parent organization.
Bikes, Blues and BBQ is a brand that’s been tarnished in recent years due to financial shortfalls. Those losses led to the suspension of charitable contributions in 2003 and 2008. This year, the festival generated $48,500 for 33 nonprofit organizations.
That sprinkling of money caused even Northwest Arkansas Times columnist Greg Harton to question if appeasing so many nonprofits instead of giving substantial sums to a smaller group was a good idea.
In a news story, you typically try to contextualize the discussion and provide the reader or viewer with enough information to understand the situation.
KNWA neglected to mention on air that this spin-off festival is made possible through $20,000 in seed money from the city’s Advertising and Promotion Commission.
In my own informal conversations around town, this is the fact that most bothers those in opposition to the festival. Should the commission give such a large sum to generate a spin-off festival from one that is increasingly controversial and may not even be the public face that Fayetteville wants to promote?
Others are uncomfortable with the perceived buddy-buddy relationship between Bikes, Blues and BBQ festival organizers and those who work with the commission.
Follow me here for a second.
In July, the Bikes, Blues and BBQ directors added Chamber of Commerce president Steve Clark and Allyson Twiggs Dyer to their ranks. Twiggs Dyer is the director of the Fayetteville Convention and Visitor’s Bureau which is overseen by the Advertising and Promotion Commission which Heifner directs.
Also, commission member Neal Crawford serves on both boards.
Some argue that creates a conflict of interest that while not prohibited by state law, appears unethical.
So, what KNWA foisted on the public as an argument about whether bikes would be too loud or not is a much more nuanced and complicated issue. Painting it in such simplistic terms really does the discussion a disservice.
In contrast to KNWA’s story, an interesting discussion has emerged on the Fayetteville Flyer regarding the issue. Commission chairman Tim Freeman has even expressed his own opinion in the comments. That’s something I think is commendable and should be encouraged among those appointed to serve.
Let me finish by saying, this column is a critique of KNWA’s handling of this story, not an opinion on Bikes, Babes and Bling itself.
I’d like to continue to cover the festival’s development from a news perspective, so Ozarks Unbound will not likely take a position on Bikes, Babes and Bling in the months to come.
UPDATE: I should add that I’ve joined the Facebook group in opposition to the festival in an effort to stay abreast of news developments. I’m also a member of the Bikes, Blues and BBQ group for the same reason.
Ink By the Byte is an occasional media criticism column.
“Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel” – a newspaper adage
SIMILAR POSTS
- Alderman Petty drops opposition to Bikes, Babes & Bling from the Fayetteville Flyer | CF at 12:09 pm on January 12, 2010
- Bikes, Blues and Bother: Residents sound off on Fayetteville’s motorcycle fests at 5:22 pm on January 20, 2010
- Bikes, Blues and Bling? Questioning how promotion dollars are spent | CF at 10:35 am on November 13, 2009
- Bikes, Babes And Bling organizers trying to determine what happened | CF at 11:51 pm on July 6, 2010
- Bikes, Blues and BBQ resumes charitable donations of $48,500 in 2009, plugs spin off Bikes, Babes and Bling festival for women bikers at 3:58 am on November 17, 2009
misty on 
Elon on 
Christopher Spencer on 
Skip Descant on 
eLwood on 
Brian N on 
Subscribe
16 Comments
KNWA also used the organizers’ numbers claiming 300,000 attended the rally, when we know that the figure is closer to 90,000. The Demozette made the same mistake in their editorial yesterday.
Why do so many journalists automatically trust numbers from promoters?
This article from October 4, 2009 by Bill Bowden appeared in the Demozette and outlines clearly that the numbers are grossly inflated: http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/oct/04/number-bikers-well-lot-20091004/
I’m not sure I would consider editorial writers journalists. There is a very distinct difference.
I’m curious. How do you know the attendance figure is approximately 90,000 versus 400,000 or any other number for that matter? How do you know? Why should we trust your figure anymore than we should trust another source’s figure? How was your the figure you spout calculated? Given your oral/written track record, I would be inclined to believe the tooth fairy’s figures before I ever gave credence to yours.
Mr. Petty probably gets his count from his porch, not taking into consideration the other venues for bbbbq.
The count can not be taken by the number of bikes (or trikes) since many attendees haven’t got one.
Just wall to wall people for several days and lots of noise.
While I appreciate the interest, did any of you bother to read the link I cited? Unlike the organizers’ count, which is simply an estimate, I provided a source for the numbers I used.
@Nom de guerre – Who cares if they are journalists or not? Since when did we exempt anyone from the responsibility of telling the truth?
Yeah, actually I _did_ go to the link. Pity there was nothing there to read the first times I clicked it so why don’t you can the snide attitude? The source you linked appears to be just as questionable as the attendance figures put forth by the source you are at issue with.
You apparently are just more pleased with the lower figure. Time and time again in the very article you reference people are quoted as saying it is an unquantifiable number.
I would add that not only should we not exempt journalists from the responsibility of telling the truth and being honest, we also shouldn’t exempt elected officials.
Morgan, you asked “How do you know the attendance figure is approximately 90,000 versus 400,000 or any other number for that matter? How do you know? Why should we trust your figure anymore than we should trust another source’s figure? How was your the figure [sic] you spout calculated?”
And I answered honestly with transparency. In the article I cited, the methodology to calculate the numbers I use are explained as being a function of solid waste collection data. They are not “my” figures. The numbers organizers are using, according to the article, are the result of eyeballed estimations and/or traffic counts on I540. Figures presented by the organizers are the only numbers that are unquantifiable.
I’m sorry you don’t like me, but I don’t see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. With all due respect, it is clouding your judgement of the data.
Now that the original link I cited has moved into the ArkansasOnline archives, it can still be accessed here: http://www.evernote.com/pub/matthewpetty/shared-clippings
You’re at least correct on one score; I don’t like you. That has nothing to do with my judgment of the data from the source you provide. You are on here claiming that attendance is closer to 90,000. That makes it YOUR figure, your source. What are the biases of your source, your figures?
I am going to be appalled if people reelect you, assuming you run again. For you to natter on about honesty and transparency and truth and responsibility is inane. You don’t like the festival. Period. You don’t care about the truth or logic of any figure or statement made regarding the festival as long as you can say something negative.
“….when we know that figure is closer to 90,000.” “In the article I cited, the methodology to calculate the numbers I use are explained as being a function of solid waste collection data.”
Your words. And yet if you actually read the article and bother to make sense of it, versus just latching onto the figure that suits your purposes, you will understand there is no good figure. Sturgis doesn’t arrive at their estimate based on just solid waste data. (Putting aside completely that there is no reason we should trust their figures anymore than any others)
I attended the festival three times. My sole contribution to trash was a container from the spiral chips I bought. I can imagine there were lots of people like me and lots of people who contributed no trash whatsoever.
Speaking of trash, if you had paid close attention to YOUR source you would have noticed the gentleman who states there are no scientists who based crowd calculations off of solid waste data. None. I don’t buy your claims of honesty but you are, at least, quite transparent.
Just to be clear, are you arguing that a figure based on a methodology is just as inaccurate as a figure based on eyeballed estimates?
I never claimed the numbers based on solid waste data was perfect, I only said it was more accurate. I think that it is quite reasonable to judge a figure derived from a solid waste methodology as more accurate than one arrived at from eyeballed crowd estimates and traffic counts.
Some of us are proud to have people like Matthew Petty representing us; having a representative who actually makes his personal opinion public without smooth-talking, waffling and fence-riding until re-election is a nice breath of fresh air. Maybe back off the ad-hominems a bit, Mr (or Ms, I don’t know which and mean no offense) Dooley? It’s tainting your message.
I am stating that both are inaccurate. We have no way of determining just how inaccurate. I would guess that garbage counting is about as inaccurate as the other methods used. Remember, your source gives us the information that no scientists would use garbage calculations to determine crowd size.
What you said was, …”we know the figure is closer to ninety thousand.” Sadly we don’t know that. We don’t know that anymore than we don’t know that the figure isn’t closer to 400,000. How close is closer? 10,000 closer? 25,000? 50,000? 100,000? I don’t know. You don’t know. Unless of course you think it is quite reasonable to use a methodology that the scientists won’t use nor does Sturgis, the undisputed grandpa of bike rallies.
@Zorzin – no offense taken. I am female. I do take offense at the suggestion I have engaged your politician in an ad hominem attack. I’ve done no such thing. I don’t like him. I think he is a tool. I have not based by argument with him based upon that. I have engaged him on his opinions and statements. That isn’t an ad hominem argument. As far as smooth-talking, waffling and fence-riding goes, I think his written record speaks for itself. How about the statement that he was going to propose a counsel resolution regarding the female version of BB&BBQ and then subsequent statement that he didn’t see the point since the counsel lacked any authority? Or maybe he didn’t realize that until someone clued him in on the facts?
RE: Bikes Babes and Bling Council action -
What I said was that I was considering Council action. That is still the case. While the Council has no direct authority, the Mayor does, and the Council can take actions to influence the Mayor.
Nuances like this are important.
RE: BBBQ numbers -
You make a fair point (gasp, he can concede something!), but I still choose to believe that numbers based on solid waste figures are likely far more accurate than numbers based on eyeballed estimates and traffic counts, especially given the large disparity between solid waste figures for Sturgis and BBBQ. Such a large disparity speaks for itself, and it’s clear to anyone with sense that the organizers’ claims are highly questionable. Stating “we know the number to be closer to 90,000″ is very reasonable given such a large discrepancy in solid waste figures from a (supposedly) comparably-sized motorcycle rally.
But this is just one man’s opinion, and you’re free to hate me for it. Cheers.
I can’t lay my fingers on it right now (I follow too many blogs) but you recently stated that you were not going to move forward with any sort of resolution because the council lacks any authority. There were no nuances to your statement.
I have never stated the organizers’ numbers are reasonable. I’ve merely stated that basing an attendance figure on garbage is just as bad. Instead of putting faith in faulty figures and arguing over which is less inaccurate, maybe the powers that be would be better off, and the city better served, if someone would come up with an accurate way to determine attendance at the event. Call me weird but I prefer accurate figures and good math over the less inaccurate figure of two inaccurate figures.
I’m free to do a lot of things. Hating anyone I have never met would be a waste of my energy.
Likewise, I would consider assuming someone is a tool that you have never met would a waste of your energy, but that’s my own opinion.
Nope, deciding someone is a tool, even if I have never met them in person, is called making a judgment. We do that every day of our lives. We have to judge people in order to function in society. I didn’t vote for McCain because I found him to be lacking in my judgment. I don’t bother listening to Rush Limbaugh because I find him to be a talking head and blowhard. I think the former mayor of Los Altos is a tool. I’ve never physically met any of these people and yet they have impacted and/or affected my life at different times. I believe it’s important for people to be involved in their communities, both on the local and national level. It’s never a waste of energy to be involved in my own life.