While I was away on vacation, taking pictures of some amazing cities, celebrating their positive side, the Economist
magazine trashed my stomping ground and I am not a happy puppy. I am
particularly annoyed, since they conveniently ignored so many good
things that are happening here.
If you haven't seen the Economist's July 26th article on Arizona ("Into the Ashes") go read it and come back.
Going by some letters in response to its editorial last Wednesday in the Republic, readers were as critical. Two out of three letters criticized the editorial for not facing reality. One, however was a letter from a couple who thought the criticism was undeserved. They signed off as being "London by birth, Arizona by choice."
Why such a paucity of positive commentary? More pertinently, where was our PR clout when this kind of 'rubbish,' as the Brits say, was in the works? How does someone from a magazine like this get to slant an article so bad, when some of the points raised are actually good: less smog than LA, new schools emerging, the opportunities that Light Rail will bring etc. They paint us as a "crime ridden mess" apparently because of the Light Rail system construction , snowbirds who leave their homes unattended, and clueless visitors.
That's like saying London is the armpit of England because of the overcrowded subway system, clueless tourists, constant terrorism issues, and Crossrail construction --conveniently ignoring the amazing positive sides of this colorful, cosmopolitan city.
Why are positive stories hidden from view, tucked in the back of the paper --like this today, about the growing state economy? It's time we started telling telling our own stories, if no one else will.
Comments