Reading Between the Lines:

Making Sense of Newsday's Cover Story

Once again, Newsday's front cover and underlying agenda has cause tension in my household this morning. The glaring headline "IF Lighthouse Fails... Hope on the Horizon" caused my "average Long Islander" husband to call me to the kitchen to "discuss" the article by Randi F. Marshall in elevated tones.

While I am not saying my husband is "average," as he is above average in too many ways to count, he is the "target" audience of those still paying for Newsday or for those who are only seeing the front cover headlines because they refuse to pay for the content enclosed. It's sensationalism on the front and a battle of "read between the lines" in the body.

So armed with a highligher and a different mindset, I attacked the print before me.

First item I noticed was that Mr. Wang was classified as the "Lighthouse Financier" instead of the "developer." Was that an effort to remove him from the project since they could not reach him for comment? "Lighthouse officials could not be reached for comment" must now be a quick text in Randi's hand-held.

Let's continue. So they tell us that "several other local developers are ready to step in should Wang and Rechler back away with five of them specifically telling Newday they'd consider building at the site...." Something tells me though that they didn't bang on Newsday's door to tell them this, but that they were sought out for quotes.

Such is Michael Dub from The Beechwood Org, whose proposal for the property is not included in the splashy, large type "Other Proposals For the Site" on pages 2 and 3. "It's too central a location not to." No kidding Mr. Dub.

Newsday mentions the political problem of not knowing who will Captain the ship in Nassau County since they botched the election process. However, did anyone notice it does say that both Mangano and Suozzi "--have said they support the Lighthouse project..." They do. But then according to the article, so do the other Long Island developers. "To be sure, most of the Island's larger developers were quick to say they want Wang and Rechler's effort in Uniondale to succeed. And some regional and county officials said the Lighthouse remains the best proposal -- and without it, there's trouble ahead."

Uh... okay... so then why are they trying to make the average reader who usually only has time to skim headlines and anything in bold type the idea that it's as good as dead? Hmmmm? Actually, the article says that developers would "consider" responding should a new call for RFP be issued. I "consider" driving to the Prudential Center when the Islanders play the Devils. I never do it though. I could. But I don't. But I sure "consider" it.

Mr. Dub also said he didn't' want to do anything to undermine the Lighthouse. So it's obvious that while the reporter is trying to put a spin on this topic, the other Long Island developers know what's going on here. Even Polimeni International, one of Long Island's most recognizable names in development is noted as saying they still think the Lighthouse project is the best option for the site. You want to know why? BECAUSE IT IS.

Also, nowhere in the article does it mention that ANY developer looking to renovote the site will still have the Water, Sewage and Traffic debate to contend with. All the other ideas for the site bring retail and residential into the site. It would be going back to square one with the Environmental studies. But, that wasn't mentioned, was it?

Sadly, because I took the time and effort to "read between the lines," I can see the article in a different light. What the "average" Long Islander is going to see is..."Oh, Wang's pulling out. Someone else said they'd develop the site. Oh look, the Giants finally won."

I pay for this? ughh.