Controlled Spin

Nothing about Jack Metz's Dupont deckover story bore the marks of a trilogy saga when he submitted it for publication two years ago. Yet here we are, circling back to it for the third time.

To recap, soon after the original piece went live, it generated a bunch of controversy on local message boards. Enough, in fact, that we felt compelled to run an editorial to address the issue. *

Since then, the unnecessary $30+ million infrastructure idea has been in limbo. It's unclear whether either DC Equalizer article helped shelve the project in 2023. We, of course, prefer to imagine our efforts were responsible for jamming it in the freezer door.

Fast forward to today. That same 'road diet' meal is getting rapidly defrosted. But to serve up such a wildly overpriced street dish in mere months, those in power needed to turn up the heat. Bureaucrats began by slyly setting the table again in February. At April's legally required but sparsely advertised update meeting, they announced they will be shovel ready this summer. ** 

It'd be an understatement to say the community response was negative. A significant number of longtime DC residents expressed their unmistakable animosity online.

Enter the journalists to do damage control...

Last week, the folks over at City Cast chatted with NBC4 transportation chief Adam Tuss. A glance at the podcast episode description hints at the inherent slant. Whoever wrote it chose to attach the adjective "vibrant" to the deckover concept. That might sound like small potatoes compared to what you're about to learn; still, it suggests an inability to present a balanced discussion.

Once you hit play on the 5/19/25 recording, the real bias almost immediately seeps out. What follows is a bulleted selection of sentiments and quotes (with approximate time stamps) that exemplifies how compromised Tuss is:

• {3:40} Asserts the deckover will "make the area more useful"

• {5:00} Has the gall to declare that $30 million "really isn't a lot"

• {5:10) In the next breath, he admits that prices often go up in construction

• {6:00} Splits hairs by saying civic space doesn't exist there, despite three nearby spots

• {6:35} "Intent here is to give something better to the area, to improve it, to beautify it"

• {7:00} Bills it as "a nice attraction, something to bring people down to Dupont Circle"

• {12:10} Doesn't offer counter to "certainly see the benefit of it... see where it makes sense"

• {13:00} Proclaims ventures that aren't needed usually end up "working out in the long run"

In those rare instances where he concedes the situation could ruin regular people's livelihoods, his partiality becomes even clearer. He literally cackles {4:25} when the pod host mentions how the job will neither be quick nor cheap. Making it worse, he later calls it "a painful project for a lot of people in that area," parroting {7:30} the quote of the BID director Tuss interviewed years ago. So, it's not that he's unaware of the colossal headaches Dupont stakeholders will suffer through during this three-year endeavor; he simply doesn't care about their plight beyond the baseline level of lip service. In case this assessment seems too harsh, understand that he brushes aside locals' concerns to make room for unnamed officials' "no pain, no gain" mentality. {11:20}

Before closing the segment with listless platitudes about citizens' need to "weather the storm" {16:00}, Tuss lobs in two grenades that undermine and effectually incapacitate deckover opponents. He first lumps critics' objections into one pot, boiling it down to them "basically just say(ing) that they want to see in writing what exactly is gonna happen." As if anyone with a functioning brain would think documentation was their primary concern rather than stopping the proposal outright. To maximize the damage, he then contends that there's "a lot of support" for the scheme, citing a solitary (disgraced) politician who championed it. {14:15} ***

For the coup de grâce, he equates any remaining pushback that might occur between now and July to a "wrench thrown in at the last minute." Is there a more fitting metaphor for Tugboat Tuss to assign to legitimate grievances that might interfere with the SS DDOT moving "full steam ahead?" {15:00}

Newsmen of his ilk are afraid to jeopardize relationships with agency sources. Their careers and incomes depend on maintaining access. Thus, it stands to reason that they will toe the establishment line whenever possible. This explains why discordant views are glossed over at the City Casts of the world. It also goes to show why dissenters are persona non grata on the mic. ****

Inconvenient information is unwelcome in their domains. That's why it's spun into oblivion.

--------------------------------------------------

* In short, we analyzed how social media comments made in bad faith can have a muzzling effect.

** Don't put it past DDOT to have strategized kicking off 'phase zero' construction in a month when DC is at its emptiest. Hypothetically, if this work was scheduled to commence in March or October, many more individuals (especially the ones who don't track government meetings) would see this obvious nuisance with their own eyes and, consequently, make a stink. Instead, the unwashed masses will return to a state of upheaval around the start of the next school year, at which point DDOT can tell everyone it's 'too late' to turn back due to the substantial changes already made.

*** That's now the second time his version of consensus involves a single identifiable source.

**** Case in point: City Cast doesn't appear to give a platform to people who hate the deckover, but open up their studios to DDOT to lay out whatever narrative they desire after letting the anything-but-neutral Tuss smooth the path.

Postscript: since we have you here, check out this clip that 'Breaking Points' disseminated days after the City Cast one. While the subjects are vastly different, the reporters' narrative-massaging role is strikingly similar. Witness Ryan Grim finding a way to slap the "reactionary right-wing" label on a murder suspect with known leftist ties. Then, moments after letting that slide, watch Krystal Ball 'insinuate without insinuating' the potential for a false flag being the real explanation. Whether pre-planned or off the cuff, their words demonstrate an astonishing lack of journalistic integrity. Is there still doubt that professionals like Ball, Grim, and Tuss pervert the stories they cover?