Neighborhood Comparison, or Hit Piece on a Competitor?
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — In a guest story on LAist today titled "Urban Design: A Tale of Two Downtowns," Jack Skelley paints a comparison between two Downtown development projects:
How hard has the housing slump hit Downtown L.A.? Two buildings tell two different stories. The Rowan in the Old Bank District has scheduled an auction to unload 79 lofts on February 8. Whereas Evo in South Park has closed sales on a dozen condos in the last eight weeks: This includes a $3 million, all-cash penthouse deal last week - the largest purchase price for a single residential unit in Downtown, ever.
The problem? Skelley's a spokesman for the Evo development, and the piece includes no mention of his conflict of interest.
Skelley's argument says that Evo's South Park location and LEED-certified design make it a far more appealing buy than the adaptive-reuse Rowan. He cites a recent $3 million penthouse sale at Evo, one that recently got a mention on the LA Times' LA Now blog in which Skelley was quoted.
Skelley's argument is legitimate enough to make, though one would likely find just as many Downtowners that would take the opposite stance and give their preference to the Historic Core. His opinion of the Rowan auction also seems misguided; on Thursday we wrote about the interest that project is receiving.
What's unbelievable is that a publicist would be so brazen as to bash a competitor in print without listing his title. It's similarly remarkable that a publication like LAist, even as a blog, would run a guest story without understanding who had written it.
At the end of the day, the real lesson is one for readers. Be skeptical and do your homework. Don't get fooled by bad stories, even on otherwise good publications. The new media age shouldn't throw out the rules of disclosure, but it also doesn't remove your responsibility to make good judgments about what you read.
Update (7pm): In the last few minutes the story has been updated to include this tiny disclosure:
Photos courtesy of Jack Skelley. Jack Skelley also represents Evo and Urban Land Institute Los Angeles.
SeanYodaRouse on January 26, 2009, at 07:01PM – #1
LAist has altered the disclaimer on the article. Where it originally said, "Photos courtesy of Jack Skelley," it now says, "Photos courtesy of Jack Skelley. Jack Skelley also represents Evo and Urban Land Institute Los Angeles"
evowatcher on January 26, 2009, at 08:39PM – #2
the add of the tiny disclosure makes the whole thing even worse.
Zach Behrens on January 26, 2009, at 10:58PM – #3
Thank you, Eric, for keeping us honest. Mistakes and misjudgments happen and you've certainly pointed this scenario out in an honest light. As Editor of LAist, I take full responsibility and will be looking into this matter to make sure our screening process is more thorough from here on out.
Onward and upward to better blogging throughout Los Angeles,
Zach Behrens Editor, LAist.com
MB on January 27, 2009, at 08:20AM – #4
And it looks like Jack Skelley lifted that picture of the Rowan from Fridayinla's Flickr page without attribution and (I'm guessing) without permission. The image on Flickr is marked "All rights reserved"
Haven on January 27, 2009, at 09:02AM – #5
Nice work Eric! Sounds like someone doesn't like the competition - especially if they are lowering prices. The picture of Evo, is a beautiful shiny render while the pic of the Rowan is blurry with yellow construction cladding... "Photos courtesy of Jack Skelley."
Skelley states: "So what accounts for the difference? Location, location… and design. While The Rowan offers refurbished lofts in an old building in the Skid Row-adjacent Old Bank District, Evo is a sleek, Silver LEED-certified trophy tower, steps from booming L.A. Live, the subway and light rail."
my my.
I think Evo has been selling units (presales) for over a year now, so to only close a total 12 contracts in that timeframe averages out to less than one unit per month - not that great. I think that the rowan has actually sold more than this.
spin spin.
and get it in a blog as "editorial"
Jim Winstead on January 27, 2009, at 09:57AM – #6
maybe it's just because i'm in a bad mood, but it sounds sort of like this situation is a great example of why some of us have absolutely no desire to live in south park.
Rich Alossi on January 27, 2009, at 03:19PM – #7
Definitely a hit piece, just as bad as the recent issue of Los Angeles Magazine.
And yeah, that photo isn't "courtesy Jack Skelley" at all. Thanks for pointing that out, MB.
Jonathan on January 27, 2009, at 08:06PM – #8
Nice expose...(ex-poh-zay)
this skelley guy needs to put his hand on the pulse of the real downtown population. not the girls with rich parents who go to FIDM and dont want to live within 100 yards of a homeless person.
David Kennedy on January 27, 2009, at 10:07PM – #9
Jim, I always like it when you're in a bad mood. Just don't take it out on your wife.
Tammy on January 28, 2009, at 10:33AM – #10
Disappointing that LAist, a blog I generally like, published such an obvious hit piece without doing their homework on the writer. As local blogs get more readers and influence, they'll hopefully learn why traditional print publications had ethics guidelines designed to avoid situations like this.
Randall BusTard on February 03, 2009, at 07:19AM – #11
This is not the first time that some questionable "reporting" has been done on LAist. When former editor Tony Pierce was overseeing the blog, he saw to eliminating comments that called him on his poor judgment even as he allowed slander to run rampant in the same thread. His actions appeared to be an attempt to cover up his hypocrisy and lack of discretion, behaviour not unlike the poor judgment mentioned in this thread.
To wit: "Google search on LAist.com for jane, bitch: LAist: The Neighborhood Project: Watts "dear jane, he gave you the links. way to go from ignorant slut to dumb bitch!" guest. I bet that's you Anti or one of your friends. ... laist.com/2007/08/07/the_neighborhood_project_watts.php - Similar pages
Clicking on the link to the page under review reveals that this and other comments have quietly disappeared. Amid the comments are people named for their own commentary, but strangely, those comments are suddenly gone. Perhaps the noticeable gaps in the comment numbers belie the unscrupulous elimination of comments that Mr. Pierce did not want his future masters at LAT to see? Is this the fashion by which Mr. Pierce will also edit the LAT blogs?"