A FEW WEEKS AGO, Inquirer editorial page editor (and TU adjunct) Paul Davies wrote a column about the opening of the massive expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.
"Would you invest $786 million in a business that lost millions every year, charged more than most of its competitors, and left many customers angry and unwilling to return?" Davies asked. "Well, you just did."
He wrote that the center is full of cronyism, inside politics and union mismanagement and it is hurting the city and state (since the money to build and expand the place came from public funds).
Today, the chairman of the Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau has a letter to the editor in the Inquirer:
"Unfortunately, as a result of that column, a major convention customer whose business is worth $54 million in spending for the city is now questioning our ability as a convention destination," Nick DeBenedictis wrote.
He argued that the negativism of the Inquirer and Davies will cost the center (and therefore city and state) millions of dollars.
He concluded by writing, "We should all be rooting for the home team, and encouraging customers to choose Philadelphia."
Was Davies wrong to be critical of the Convention Center expansion? Should he have championed the larger facility?
Can a journalist be a watchdog for the public and a civic booster at the same time?
(the image above is from the Flower Show at the Convention Center)
1 year ago