The New York Times and
Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards:
High-Rises and Low Standards
A Pattern of Inadequate, Misleading, Mostly Uncritical Coverage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By Norman Oder

September 1, 2005
(updated Sept. 5, 2005)
Contact: TimesReport@hotmail.com
Online version: www.dddb.net/times

 The New York Times and
Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards:
High-Rises and Low Standards
A Pattern of Inadequate, Misleading, Mostly Uncritical Coverage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By Norman Oder

September 1, 2005
(updated Sept. 5, 2005)
Contact: TimesReport@hotmail.com
Online version: www.dddb.net/times

 Introduction
The New York Times & Atlantic Yards

Developer Forest City Ratner’s proposed $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards development at
an at least 22-acre site in Brooklyn—recently revised with taller versions of at least 17
high-rise towers and an arena for the Nets NBA basketball team—“may be the most
important urban development plan proposed in New York City in decades,” according
to New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff (Seeking First to Reinvent the
Sports Arena, and Then Brooklyn; 7/5/05). According to the developer, Atlantic Yards
would be the largest project in Brooklyn’s history and the third-largest ever in New
York City. Those are reasons enough for the project to merit exacting scrutiny from the
newspaper of record.
There’s another reason: Forest City Ratner (FCR) is The New York Times
Company’s development partner for the new Times Tower on Eighth Avenue between
40th and 41st streets, scheduled for occupancy in 2007. For that project, the Times
Company agreed to guarantee a $100 million loan to FCR for its portion of the
structure. FCR President Bruce Ratner and Vice President Jim Stuckey helped choose
architect Renzo Piano for the Times Tower. Given the parent company’s connection to
FCR, it might be expected that the Times—the company’s agship newspaper—would
offer thorough coverage, taking care to dispel any hint of conict of interest. Indeed,
Public Editor Byron Calame has noted that the Times must avoid both bias and any
perception of tilt toward Ratner (see item 10.2).
Unfortunately, since FCR’s announcement of the Atlantic Yards project
in December 2003, the Times’s coverage has been inadequate, misleading, and
mostly uncritical of FCR. An assessment of the Times’s coverage of Atlantic Yards
unearths numerous stories missed, legitimate critics ignored, issues downplayed, and
mistakes uncorrected. The Times seems to have abandoned its responsibility to look
carefully at Bruce Ratner, Brooklyn’s largest developer, while several political leaders
unquestioningly support his latest project.
This report concludes that the Times’s cumulative coverage of FCR’s Atlantic
Yards project does not meet the paper’s own standards. As the newspaper’s Guidelines
on Integrity state, “Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times.”
Evidence of the newspaper’s failure to follow the Atlantic Yards story is
overwhelming. Other media outlets (including the New York Daily News, the New
York Post, The New York Sun, Newsday, The New York Observer, The Brooklyn Papers,
Brooklyn Downtown Star, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, The Brooklyn Rail, and WNYC
radio) have reported crucial information that the Times has omitted. The Times
has even ignored the recommendations of its own Public Editor, the ombudsman
The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Introduction

View of Prospect Heights neighborhood along
south side of potential site (much of the block
with the tallest building is sectioned out of the
plan)

The coverage does not
meet the paper’s own
standards

i

 position established in 2003 to independently critique newsroom operations after the
fabrications of reporter Jayson Blair suggested widespread institutional failures.
The aws in the Times’s coverage of the Atlantic Yards development plan don’t
prove that there’s any directive to go easy on Forest City Ratner. However, given the
two companies’ corporate relationship, the Times newspaper should report on FCR
exactingly. That has not been the case. That institutional failure shapes public policy
and public opinion.
As the newspaper’s own “credibility committee” said in a report issued earlier this
year, “when numerous articles use the same assumption as a point of departure, that
monotone can leave the false impression that the paper has chosen sides.” Although
that sentence was written in regard to “emotional topics” like abortion, it also applies
to the coverage of FCR’s Atlantic Yards proposal.
This report raises numerous questions about how the Times has handled this
major story and identies dozens of errors that require correction (see Chapter 11). It
also identies multiple articles for which disclosure of the relationship with FCR was
warranted, but never made (see Chapter 10). Those disclosures should be added to the
archived versions of those articles. In an interview with Public Editor Byron Calame (A
Conversation With the Standards Editor, 8/28/05), Standards Editor Allan Siegal said:
“I also believe… that we can save ourselves a lot of pain if we don’t do anything that
we would be embarrassed to have readers know about, that everything we do ought to
be something we’re willing to describe to readers and tell them about.” Public Editor
Calame, as well as editors at the Times, owe the public a thorough examination of the
newspaper’s coverage of Forest City Ratner and its Atlantic Yards project.

That institutional failure
shapes public policy and
public opinion

Pages following the Executive Summary elaborate on each item in greater detail, with
sources.

Site plan as it appeared in The New York Times
7/5/05

The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Introduction

ii

 About This Report

Norman Oder
Norman Oder, the volunteer author of the report, has been a journalist for more than
20 years. As a freelancer, he has contributed to a wide range of publications, including
Columbia Journalism Review, American Journalism Review, New York Newsday, the
New York Daily News, The Village Voice, The New York Press, and Gotham Gazette.
He earned a Master of Studies in Law as a journalism fellow at Yale Law School. A
licensed New York City tour guide, he has also operated a part-time tour business in
Brooklyn since 2000.

Author’s Note and Acknowledgements
This project began July 5, 2005. Outraged by the inadequacies of the Times article
published that day (Instant Skyline Added to Brooklyn Plan), I decided not to send
another letter to the Times—three previous ones criticizing coverage of Forest City
Ratner had generated no response—but instead e-mailed a critique of the article to
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, an organization with which I had had no previous
relationship. Shortly afterward, I suggested writing an analysis of Times coverage,
and immersed myself in articles and reports about the Atlantic Yards plan. After I
completed a draft, several people volunteered signicant help. Patti Hagan did most
of the factchecking, applying her 15 years of factchecking experience at The New
Yorker; in the process, she served as a sounding board and debating partner. Michael
Decker designed the report, making a text-heavy document far more readable, under
severe time pressure. Abby Tannenbaum copyedited most of the report, also under
severe time constraints. Danila Oder offered crucial editing and organizational advice.
Schellie Hagan also performed vital editorial and factchecking work. I and especially
Stuart Sachs contributed most of the photos. (Rights to Tom Callan’s photos were
purchased.) Others who volunteered help include: Pamela Ford, Steve Soblick,
and Summer Starling, as well as several other readers. Some of the volunteers are
opponents of the Atlantic Yards project; I welcomed their comments on news coverage,
though I didn’t agree with all of them.The nal responsibility for the report remains
mine.

The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Introduction

iii

 Executive Summary
The Times Fails to Adequately Cover Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards

1. The Times has overlooked basic facts behind the deal proposed
by FCR. The idea of the Nets arena and basketball team at the Atlantic Yards site
is a lure to reel in politicians, businesses, and residents behind a massive real estate
development of at least 17 skyscrapers covering at least 22 acres. Forest City Ratner
titles its web site for the project “Bring Basketball to Brooklyn.”
The most recent major Times story (7/5/05) on the expanded design, as a $2.5
billion project became a $3.5 billion one, reads as if the reporter never noticed that
the initial announcement included the tallest building in Brooklyn. Nor did the Times
explain why the project had to grow from 4,500 housing units to 6,000 or 7,300 units,
with towers taller and bulkier than previously projected. The answer points to the need
for more market-rate housing to ensure sufcient prots for the entire project. The
Times has not explained that “affordable” relies on an average income well above the
average in Brooklyn, that “affordable” consists mainly of “middle income” housing,
and that the “affordable housing” will last only 30 years.

The answer points to the
need for more market-rate
housing to ensure prots

2. The Times—as well as most other media outlets covering the
project—hasn’t questioned FCR’s projections about jobs. However, FCR
has lowered its own estimate for permanent jobs from 10,000 to 6,000—and there
might be even fewer jobs. Also, a signicant percentage of those jobs would likely be
“retained” rather than new to the city. Also, FCR and government ofcials promise
“15,000 construction jobs,” but that standard industry term actually means 1,500 jobs a
year over 10 years.

3.

The Times has failed to examine the true public cost of the project.

FCR and supporters say it will require $200 million in direct state and city subsidies.
However, the company acknowledges that the total public cost over 30 years would
be well over $1 billion. Independent studies suggest the cost of public support would
be higher. The Times has failed to fully analyze these reports. It has failed to analyze
FCR’s rosy projections of new revenue, even though they’re contradicted by the New
York City Economic Development Corporation. The Times has not explained that the
project would be nanced via methods that bypass the City Council. In addition, the
Times has barely considered the effect on local trafc, including the economic impact,
much less other increased demands for public services.

The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Executive Summary

iv

 4. The Times has neglected to analyze the Community Benefits
Agreement (CBA), which experts consider to be of dubious legitimacy compared
to CBAs elsewhere. Nor has it reported that an FCR ally with a questionable ethical
record, State Assemblyman Roger Green, helped conceive the CBA as well as the jobdevelopment group Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD),
which sprang up solely to negotiate the agreement. The newspaper has done no
analysis of BUILD. Nor has the Times analyzed the manipulation of racial politics in
the debate.

5. The Times has mischaracterized and minimized opposition to the
project. It has reported that the opposition is “local residents” while ignoring the
elected ofcials who oppose the project. The newspaper conducted a poll that showed
most city respondents—not just local ones—oppose a taxpayer-supported arena, but
it reported those results only on its web site, not in the print edition. Unlike other
daily newspapers in New York City, the Times ignored results from a 2004 Quinnipiac
University poll that revealed majority opposition to a taxpayer-supported arena. The
Times has not reported that, in public debates, Norman Siegel, a candidate for Public
Advocate, has challenged incumbent Betsy Gotbaum regarding her position on
eminent domain at Atlantic Yards.

The Times ignored results
from a 2004 Quinnipiac
University poll

6. The project has been plagued by a lack of transparency and a
subversion of local government control, with little reporting on this
from the Times. Unlike other media outlets, the Times did not cover the only
City Council hearing on the project in 2005. It missed the testimony of watchdog
groups who called the process of approving this plan deeply awed. It even missed
new information from FCR. The Times has ignored criticisms of FCR’s inuence by
members of Brooklyn community boards.

7. The Times has missed many chances to delve into FCR’s tactics
for winning project approval. In May 2004, FCR sent a questionable mass
mailing to Brooklynites, offering a souvenir if respondents endorsed Atlantic Yards.
The mailing misleadingly quoted the Times and inappropriately used the Times’s
own logo. FCR requires its partner in its housing agreement to speak positively of the
plan. The Times has not reported these stories. In addition, when FCR buys property

Model view of latest version of Frank Gehry’s
plan for Atlantic Yards, as published in The
New York Times, 7/5/05 (proposal shaded for
emphasis)

The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Executive Summary

v

 within the footprint of its plan, sellers are contractually required to speak positively
of the company and give up their right to criticize the development. The Times has
mentioned this once, in passing, and in a Real Estate section story rather than a Metro
section story. FCR published and distributed a newspaper-like promotional sheet, The
Brooklyn Standard, which contains misleading information about the project. The
Times reported on The Brooklyn Standard 10 weeks after its appearance.

8. The Times has soft-pedaled FCR’s track record of gaining subsidies
for its projects and failing to fulfill the visions promised. All of FCR’s major
Brooklyn projects—the MetroTech ofce development and the Atlantic Center and
Atlantic Terminal malls—have relied signicantly on subsidies and/or government
tenants. However, the Times has portrayed those projects positively, ignoring many of
their critics. The Times has not, since the announcement of the Atlantic Yards project,
printed a prole of the company, the largest real estate developer in Brooklyn, and
only the sketchiest prole of its billionaire president.

9. The Times has downplayed the threat of eminent domain in the
Atlantic Yards project, although it has covered the issue outside Brooklyn in
greater detail. It has not run a substantial analysis of the use of eminent domain in
the Atlantic Yards plan, and it has printed self-serving and unsubstantiated statements
issued by FCR. It has not reported that the eminent domain threat has already forced
some tenants out of the projected site footprint. Its editorials have soft-pedaled the
impact of eminent domain in Brooklyn. It covered a nationally-important eminent
domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the city of New York and both
FCR supporters and opponents led briefs, without mentioning the potential effect of
the case on the Atlantic Yards project.

A building on Dean Street, a block slated for
the skyscraper plan

10. The Times has been inconsistent in disclosing its ties to FCR,
though both of its Public Editors, Daniel Okrent and Byron Calame, have
recommended more disclosure. FCR is a development partner with The New
York Times Company to build the new Times Tower, in Midtown. As a company,
the Times has an interest in FCR’s reputation and overall success, especially since
FCR must nd tenants for half of the tower. A New York Times Magazine interview
with FCR President Bruce Ratner did not mention his ties to the newspaper’s parent
company. Public Editor Calame chastised the paper in his Web Journal, but the Times
did not publish a correction or letter. In addition, the Times has not disclosed its ties
to FCR in at least 13 other substantial articles about the developer, including a tribute
to the initial Atlantic Yards design by former architecture critic Herbert Muschamp
(who served with FCR ofcials on the selection committee for the architect for the
Times Tower), as well as articles about two FCR malls adjacent to the Atlantic Yards
site. The Times for nearly ve years has not mentioned that FCR’s Bruce Ratner and
Jim Stuckey helped choose the Times Tower architect. The Times should immediately
add disclosure of the parent company’s relationship with FCR to relevant articles in its
archive.

The Times has regularly,

11.

Brooklyn”

The Times has not published corrections of obvious misinformation.

The newspaper has twice portrayed the project footprint as an open railyard, both in a
photo caption and in an article by former architecture critic Herbert Muschamp. This
error suggests the area is uninhabited and furthers the notion that FCR would work on
a blank canvas. However, only 8.3 acres of the project—which would cover at least 22
acres—constitute the railyard, while the rest consists of city streets, private homes, and
private businesses. The Times has regularly, and incorrectly, described the project as
being located in “Downtown Brooklyn.” This report documents more than 50 errors.
The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Executive Summary

and incorrectly, described
the project as being
located in “Downtown

vi

 12. The Times has failed to fulfill its role as a forum for readers’
opinions. Since the Atlantic Yards project was proposed at the end of 2003, the Times
has ignored critical letters and it has printed one that contains dubious assumptions.
It has shunted critical letters to the City Weekly section, which does not circulate
nationally. Thus, Times readers outside the ve boroughs are less able to learn about
public opinion regarding this Robert Moses–scale reshaping of Brooklyn.

13. Times editorials about the project have been inconsistent. This
raises a question of whether the parent company’s interests inuence the newspaper’s
editorial page. A recent editorial suggested that the main opposition to the plan
concerned its size. However, critics have long raised questions about eminent
domain, the public costs of the plan, the subversion of an open process, and FCR’s
dubious tactics. Also, editorialists seem to have abandoned their previous call for an
independent examination of the costs and benets of the project, as well as their stand
against using public subsidies for the Atlantic Yards project.

The Times architecture
critics have not tried
to assess FCR’s muchcriticized architectural
record in Brooklyn

14. Times architecture critics have been cheerleaders for the project.
Former critic Herbert Muschamp failed to disclose his own ties to FCR in his
rapturous assessment of the Atlantic Yards proposal and failed to disclose the Times’s
ties to FCR. Current critic Nicolai Ouroussoff has praised the project without
considering its effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Neither has tried to assess
FCR’s much-criticized architectural record in Brooklyn.

Afterword

A Questionable Track Record
A.

The Times has trouble covering Times Square redevelopment

The Times’s coverage of the Atlantic Yards controversy must be seen against the
backdrop of the newspaper’s own coverage of The New York Times Company as
a presence in Times Square. As Columbia University professor Lynne Sagalyn’s
thorough analysis of the Times Square redevelopment coverage shows (Times Square
Roulette: Remaking the City Icon, MIT Press, 2001), the newspaper has trouble
analyzing important cost-benet questions about such complex projects.

B. The Times has trouble covering its own real estate deal with Forest
City Ratner. The New York Times’s parent company, which owns several other
newspapers, TV stations, and media properties in addition to the agship newspaper,
has an interest in FCR’s success, as the two companies are partners in building the
Times Tower, a project announced in 2001. The Times’s awkwardness in covering
FCR began well before the Atlantic Yards project. The newspaper has not attempted
to quantify the Times Tower subsidies beyond vague terms. It hasn’t explained that
FCR has had trouble nding tenants, in part because of its high rent rates. It hasn’t
explained that FCR refused to use Liberty Bonds because the company was unwilling
to return some prots to the city. Nor has it reported that the Times Company’s prot
from selling its old building may have made public subsidies for the new Times Tower
less plausible.

The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: Executive Summary

vii