Editor’s Note: In a recent two-part edition, The Audit roundly castigated the press for what we believe has been a dismal job covering the reconstruction of the World Trade Center. We took issue with repetitive and undeservedly positive profiles of the trade center’s leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, and said the Financial Times, Esquire and the New York Post in particular were played “like a circus organ” by Silverstein’s publicist Howard Rubenstein.

Scott Raab, author of a lengthy series on ground zero for Esquire, asked for some space to respond.
In the interest of improved ground zero coverage, and of providing a home for reasoned debate about business-press issues, we set up a debate between Raab and Elinore Longobardi, the author of The Audit pieces. The last word is Raab’s.

Raab:

I‘ve worked since April 2005 on a series of stories for Esquire about
rebuilding the World Trade Center, so I’d like to challenge the
assertion that Howard Rubenstein has “played (me) like a circus organ.”

To repeat and emphasize one point, at no time have I or my editor
dealt
with Howard Rubenstein or anyone from his agency during the two and
a
half years we have been reporting about rebuilding the World Trade
Center. From the beginning, in April 2005, we have dealt directly
with
Larry Silverstein and Dara McQuillan at Silverstein Properties. No
one
else. And neither Silverstein nor McQuillan ever asked for or
received
any control whatsoever over the range of reporting or the work
itself.

Esquire set out to write about the more practical aspects of
building a
superskyscraper, i.e., the Freedom Tower, on contested ground.
Shortly
after we began, the Freedom Tower project was thrown into chaos for
several reasons both familiar already to anybody who cares and not
directly relevant to the point — which is that, in addition to
writing
about the actual work of designing, engineering, and building the
building, we were also writing about politics, real estate, and
governance.

“Deeply misguided” as my reporting and conclusions may appear to Ms.
Longobardi, I’ll stand by it and them. Over the course of my
experience
on this story, I’ve talked with folks, on or off the record, at
every
major public agency and private contractor involved in the
rebuilding
and many of the minor ones, and I’ve followed the relevant work of
my
colleagues at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere. It’s a
big,
big story, and there’s plenty to get wrong and plenty to debate.

Still, for anyone to assert, after watching the events of the past
few
years unfold at ground zero, that the Port Authority and Silverstein
Properties were not involved in a long, vicious war; or that George
Pataki did not first search in vain for a way to strip Silverstein
of
his leasehold, and then seek to control almost every aspect of the
Freedom Tower project; or that Mike Bloomberg finally opened his
mouth
about ground zero in order to serve the best interests of New York
City—for anyone to assert any of those things, much less all of
them
— is laughably ignorant.

As for my supposed pro-Silverstein hysteria, there’s no point in
trying
to explain the differences between magazine and newspaper journalism
to
someone who already should understand them, at least in theory. But
here’s a big one: Unlike a newspaper reporter, I don’t have to hide
behind various sources to mask my own earned authority, and I don’t
need to balance sock-puppets to maintain the illusion of
objectivity.


Elinore Longobardi replies:

The purpose of this call-and-response is not to score points, but to clarify issues and improve ground zero coverage going forward.

We are happy to concede that we erred in saying that Raab was played like a circus organ by Silverstein and his external PR consultant Rubenstein.

But this to us is a form of hair-splitting. The press has been played at ground zero, let’s put it that way.

We say it is a serious mistake to accept and repeat what is by now an obviously false myth that Silverstein is, or ever was, qualified to rebuild ground zero and that he is in any
sense a victim of the state, rather than an extraordinary beneficiary.

Silverstein was, and is, inexperienced, underinsured and undercapitalized. To say he is scrappy or whatever is probably true but also irrelevant. The proof is that hole at the corner of Church and Liberty Streets.

We believe journalism’s problems at ground zero stem from its general failure to see the story for what it is: a fight over money. This is a business story. If the money isn’t the only story, it’s certainly part of it, a big part. In fact, all the major aesthetic, political and social debates about the site have been driven by Silverstein’s tangled and inadequate finances.

A couple of quick points:

Raab’s assertion that the Port has conducted a “five-year, scorched-earth war” against Silverstein is just false and ignores the record. The Port supported Silverstein in his misguided fight against insurers. It used vital insurance proceeds to buy out Silverstein’s retail partner, Westfield America, and his lender, GMAC, and returned Silverstein and his shadowy backer Lloyd Goldman their equity in late 2003. The Port allied with Silverstein—against the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., civic groups, local residents and others—in demanding that the development include ten million square feet of office space. The Port and Silverstein were—and are, today—legal and financial partners, even though the Port could have found Silverstein in default on September 12, when his lack of financial capacity to rebuild ground zero was obvious. His lack of development skills would become apparent later.

In 30,000 words, Raab provides no evidence for an assertion that fatally mis-frames the problems at ground zero. And the reason he provides no evidence is that, while it fits a pro-Silverstein storyline, it’s not true.