By Steven T. Jones
The San Francisco Chronicle leads the Sunday paper with a hit piece on Burning Man, wrapping several disparate points under the implied thesis that there is financial corruption in the organization. But the journalism and logic employed by writer Justin Berton and his editor is so bad and misleading that it says more about the Chronicle than Burning Man.
The most egregious example is the pull quote that leads the full-page jump: "This is not a financially healthy organization. If I were a donor, I'd think long and hard before I sent money their way," Sandra Muniutti, Charity Navigator analyst.
It sounds as if she's talking about Black Rock City LLC, which stages the event, rather than the event's nonprofit wing, Black Rock Arts Foundation, which she analyzed. (Full disclosure: my girlfriend Alix Rosenthal is on the BRAF advisory board, although most of my knowledge on this issue comes from years of reporting work I did for the Guardian and my own attendance at Burning Man).
It's classic bait-and-switch journalism, conflating two organizations to make a point. It's also bad journalism because it lacks context on why BRAF gave just 27 percent of their revenue to artists. Here's the context: most of BRAF's work has been to place artwork that already been built -- in most cases with art grants from BRC -- around San Francisco, a task at which BRAF has been more successful in recent years than any group in town.
But the Chronicle, by dishonest implication, would have you believe just the opposite is true.
BRAF placed Michael Christian's Flock at Civic Center, Dan Das Mann and Karen Cusolito's Passage near the Ferry Building, Pepe Orzan's Monacacas y Monacocos on Hunter's Point, and David Best's Temple on Hayes Green. Each were already built and temporary placements, so it's understandable that most of their costs involved construction, breakdown, permitting, and other expenses not counted as direct payments to the artist. Same thing with BRAF's recent Panhandle Bandshell program.
Yet at least with BRAF, the Chron tried to actually do some reporting and analysis. In going after BRC, the report spends just a couple paragraphs looking at the organization's annual financial reports -- which they voluntarily disclose, unlike other LLC's -- but apparently finding nothing sensational or incriminating there, chooses to imply that artwork in Larry Harvey's house is somehow an indication that he's growing rich at the expense of burners. The need for a "gotcha" at this floundering newspaper is clearly starting to outweigh their professionalism.
Here's the problem with the new Chronicle and their "Journalism of action" motto that editor Phil Bronstein is foisting off on a staff that is just happy to have survived the latest round of layoffs. Nobody there is willing to tell Bronstein that he's full of shit, that you can't be a paper of action and claim no perspective or values from which to base that action. What you get are a series of cheap shots -- at the homeless in Golden Gate Park, at the police cameras that the Chronicle supported installing, at a slugger they tarnished then celebrated, at a mayor that they have helped prop up, and now at Burning Man, which they helped lionize a year ago with an overkill series -- that don't add up anything but a newspaper that seeks to raise its expectations by lowering its standards.
Bronstein is an emperor with no clothes surrounded by people unwilling to tell him so, and its sad to see that spill over onto writers like Berton, who took on a valid subject in a flawed and dishonest way.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (9)
RE:"The need for a "gotcha" at this floundering newspaper is clearly starting to outweigh their professionalism.
Here's the problem with the new Chronicle and their "Journalism of action" motto that editor Phil Bronstein is foisting off on a staff that is just happy to have survived the latest round of layoffs. Nobody there is willing to tell Bronstein that he's full of shit, that you can't be a paper of action and claim no perspective or values from which to base that action."
Phil Bronstein, you're soooo FULL OF SHIT!
Posted by t selmants | August 19, 2007 12:57 PM
I'm no fan of the Chronicle, but Burning Man is still stupid bullshit.
Posted by greg | August 19, 2007 10:47 PM
The Chronicle article devoted 6 paragraphs to the fact that Larry Harvey decorates his apartment, including 3 opening paragraphs discussing a trinket he picked up at an import store. This is not journalism.
Posted by Steve Simitzis | August 20, 2007 12:30 AM
People here have learned some cheap techniques of attacking article writer from Karl Rove or Bush. Learn some sanity motherfuckers. Phil has raised good point "what should be done with hoard of cah raised by event". Does it belong to Larry+Friends. Now instead of attacking author, if you motherfuckers can tell weather it is a genuine issue or not. Hey should I go to vegas to burn to watch $100 K cathedral, fucking assholes.
Posted by dinesh prasad | August 20, 2007 11:02 AM
It was pretty clear to me that the remarks from Charity Navigator were about the foundation and not the event itself. But then I have no motivation to take a cheap shot at the Chron because they write an article slightly critical of something my girlfriend works on.
I thought the Chron was pretty on topic: What happens when a bunch of old-time artsy libertarian hippies find themselves in charge of a $10 million internationally known festival. Of course some hijinks ensue, and if they enrich David Best and Larry and his buddies, that's OK with me. They've earned it.
Posted by Regnad Kcin | August 20, 2007 11:29 AM
Personally, I've read enough Burning Man bashing and adulation to last me a lifetime. I read the article primarily out of interest in the finances of the Foundation. I think if one was acquainted with the subject - the distinction between the LLC and the Foundation - and what each does, then the article was clear. But for someone without that familiarity, I can imagine the effect being misleading.
Thanks, Steven, for clarifying about the expenses/artist payments issue. What I found striking was that the analyst noted siginificant mistakes in the Foundation's tax reporting. Looking at the Foundation's 2005 tax return on Guidestar (the most recent year available), there indeed are a couple glaring errors, including a significant discrepancy between amounts reported for program expenses. Did they spend $68,000 (as reported on page 2) or $57,000 (as reported on page 1)? These numbers should be the same.
The other thing gleaned from the tax return and Guidestar info that was actually misleading in the article was the issue of the grants to artists percentage as the entirety of their charitable work. While the BRAF calls itself a Foundation - it is actually a public charity, and operates (at least according to the descriptive text on Guidestar and its tax return) more like an active arts non-profit and less like a foundation. The mission and activities stated don't stipulate that the BRAF is solely a grantmaking organization. Regardless, comparing the BRAF to the New York Foundation for the Arts which has a budget in the millions and has been in existence for over 30 years is not a very good comparison.
However, their program expenses are only approximately 50% of their total. The BRAF is definitely spending more on administration and fundraising than comparable organizations. However, this is as reported on the 2005 tax return, that contains other errors. I would hope that with that much spent on administrative costs that the BRAF could manage to pay for accurate accounting and competent tax preparers.
Posted by Sarahell | August 20, 2007 01:04 PM
"The need for a "gotcha" at this floundering newspaper is clearly starting to outweigh their professionalism."
Shouldn't it say its professionalism? I think it should. When criticizing a newspaper, you should at least use correct grammar.
And thanks for the full disclosure, though it doesn't really mean anything -- except that you have a personal agenda that you admit to: You and your girlfriend didn't like an article, so you proceeded to write your own hit piece on the Chron and Mr. Berton, essentially using your outlet as a mud slinger. How professional is that?
Full disclosure: I don't give a shit about Burning Man, and I don't love the Chron by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Nad | August 20, 2007 01:51 PM
I first went to Burning Man in 2004, and I've since been every year. I really enjoy the event. I spent a lot of time on the BM website after the 2004 burn, and was excited to see their financial disclosure in the afterburn report for 2004.
But one thing really caught my attention in that report, and maybe they've changed their reporting since then. But they didn't list how much money they actually bring in from coffee sales (gross or net).
They do list how much they spend on coffee supplies though. I thought it was a very interesting and odd choice to not list that, especially since they list almost everything else.
Personally, I'm not really for selling coffee at burning man, though I really do appreciate the ice sales. Profits from ice sales go towards charity. I've heard that profits from coffee sales go towards supporting BM. I've just never seen a figure listed.
If anyone ever does find out, I'd like to hear about it.
Posted by JustaRabbit | August 20, 2007 04:10 PM
And while we're on the subject, I'm mildly curious about the number of paid employees. Their 2006 disclosure sites $2 million in salaries, but it's not clear if that's a few dozen full time people, or if it includes a lot of more temporary workers hired during the peak times.
Posted by Joseph Brenner | September 8, 2007 11:44 PM