Newspapers have a responsibility to separate their news stories from their editorials. When, on July 6, the Berkshire Eagle ran their supposed news story entitiled “Airport upgrade intended for all,” they were neglecting this responsibility. First of all, what prompted this article. If you read carefully, you will discover that the news event that prompted the story was the fact that airport spokesperson Randall Christiansen had spoken. The story has nothing to report other than this man’s words. So what did he say that prompted the Eagle to announce that the airport is “for all.” He said, “There’s still a sense out there that pervades a small portion of the community that this is a rich playground for the rich and famous….” Nothing else in the story addresses this point. There is no supporting evidence offered to support the position that this is a minority opinion, and there is nothing in the story that explains how the expansion will benefit the average person in Pittsfield; and yet the title proclaims this revelation.
The Eagle apparently made no effort to find an opposing viewpoint to the airport’s statement, so let me offer one. The major point made by the airport is that the expansion “…is a safety project.” The airport spokesperson points to new FAA safety regulations that require longer runways. In fact, the FAA routinely grants waivers to airports that choose not to expand. Pittsfield chose not to pursue this option seriously. Why? Was it because of safety concerns? Mr. Christiansen points to the suspicion in the minds of most residents that this is about landing bigger, faster jets in Pittsfield for their wealthy customers. ”We could build a 12,000-, a 20,000-foot runway, [but] we could not allow larger aircraft to visit this airport because we have never strengthened the pavement that the rest of the airport sits on.”
In other words, all it would take to land larger jets at the expanded airport would be to upgrade the pavement. Right now, there are jets that take off with their fuel tanks half full because the pavement will not support the weight of the jet plus a full tank of fuel. For cross-country flights, this means refueling in the mid-west. What an inconvenience. Keep in mind that the Eagle is no longer a local newspaper, but is run from Colorado. Going back and forth between Pittsfield and Denver is a lot more comfortable when you don’t have to stop half way.
Also, keep in mind that the last time the airport expanded, they swore that they could not expand a second time because of nearby wetlands. This time they are expanding right through those wetlands. They also proclaimed that the federal government would be paying 95% of the costs for the expansion. It turns out not to be the case. State and local contributions will fund most of the expansion.
Since being bought by its Colorado owners, the Eagle has always made it clear in its news stories how they think the people of Pittsfield should think. In the same issue, the Eagle lamented in an editorial the fact that local environmental groups (read BEAT) are being “obstructionists” and doing “considerable harm to what is in general a noble cause”. It has been stated that our legal appeal has stopped construction. It has not. It does nothing to stop any process related to the airport expansion. Our efforts and those of other groups have the potential to stop construction efforts only because the airport chose to put their plans out to bid before getting all of the next round of required permits. If construction is stopped or delayed, it will not be local environmental groups who are responsible. It will be the arrogance of the airport in not waiting for the regulatory “OK” to proceed. We at BEAT will continue to advocate for the environment to the best of our ability. We can only hope that the Eagle will not continue to tarnish the long honored traditions of journalism.