on what agenda the Times Daily is pushing.
Consider: Big Ed's, over in the Sweetwater Arts and Entertainment District (SAED), got plenty of coverage when it opened up. Big Ed's was apparently considered a ground-breaking, flagship operation, bringing to the SAED what many hoped would be the first of many facilities with a club-like atmosphere and musical entertainment. Big Ed's got lots of coverage in the Times Daily when it opened and afterward, but guess what? Big Ed's is no more. And guess what else? The search feature on the Times Daily web site yields zero articles on the demise of Big Ed's. One just might get the impression that the TD or some of its key staffers have a bit of an agenda to push relative to the establishment of a night club atmosphere and a more liberalized alcohol sales policy in the SAED (and elsewhere, for that matter). When the news about Big Ed's is good, it gets published; when Big Ed's dies, it gets no obituary.
Something else--it was pointed out a while back by Sam Pendleton that there was some unseemly behavior in the SAED that, according to him, was perpetrated by some out of town hooligans, and that resulted in multiple arrests. Others, including some on this forum, have associated that occurrence with Big Ed's. Was there indeed some kind of drunken dust-up there that did not get the degree of coverage Big Ed's got when it was bidding fair to be the pioneering music-food-drink, etc. venue in the SAED? Do we have an imbalance here?
If there WAS newspaper coverage of the reported multiple-arrest occurrence, I never saw it. I do not recall seeing any report of Councilman Pendleton's remarks either. ARE WE GETTING SOME VERY SELECTIVE, AGENDA-DRIVEN INFORMATION ON THE VAUNTED SAED FROM THE ONLY DAILY PAPER IN TOWN? Would public knowledge of the decline and fall of Big Ed's and of the multi-drunk arrest event perhaps influence pending and future governmental actions liberalizing the sale of alcohol. Would such coverage lend credence to the objections of those often castigated as being the narrow-minded, non-progressive "church crowd?"
Original Post