It seems Honolulu attorney David Kimo Frankel learned a bit about the do’s and don’ts of journalism from his dad, the late Star-Bulletin editor Chuck Frankel.
So he quickly spotted a problem in a Star-Advertiser business story today about the Polynesian Cultural Center.
From the S-A story:
The center in Laie is more than an hour’s drive from the heart of Oahu’s main tourism mecca and is closed on Sundays.
But that hasn’t stopped visitors from making their way to the PCC, which offers a taste of multiple cultures in one setting and has become the state’s No. 1 paid visitor attraction.
Frankel shot off a sharp reply, targeting a table listing top paid and unpaid visitor attractions which accompanied the story.
Although it was not the main point of your story, the table and portions of your article were incredibly inaccurate. And regardless of what the “sources” say, you should know that the information was just plain wrong. It costs money to get into Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park — as much, I believe, as it does to get into Pu’uhonua O Honaunau. In other words, it is a “paid attraction.” In fact, I suspect it costs more to get into Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park (and Haleakala National Park) than it does to get into the Honolulu zoo. The classification of “paid” and “unpaid” in the table and used in your article is completely arbitrary.
Quoting — and relying upon — a source that is plainly and objectively wrong is bad journalism.
The PCC is NOT the top paid attraction in Hawai’i. It is not even close.
Your readers deserve better.
I don’t think Frankel is right about the Honolulu Zoo admission, but he was right on about the national parks. There is a standard admission charged to visit most of the parks, historical sites, and monuments operated by the National Parks Service.
At Hawaii Volcanoes National Park the admission is $5 per pedestrian or bicyclist, or $10 per passenger vehicle. I think that’s pretty much the standard admission across the country. Modest, perhaps, but it is a paid attraction. And it has more than twice the annual visitors of the PCC.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
True, and the Arizona Memorial, also under Park Service jurisdiction, isn’t exactly an “unpaid attraction,” is it?
It is, but you gotta look at it from a distance.
also missing is the Dole Plantation in Central Oahu
“Originally operated as a fruit stand beginning in 1950, Dole Plantation opened to the public as Hawaii’s “Pineapple Experience” in 1989. Today, Dole Plantation is one of Oahu’s most popular visitor attractions and welcomes more than one million visitors a year.”
http://www.dole-plantation.com/_literature_155160/Halloween_2013?
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2012/07/02/hawaiis-most-visited-attractions.html?s=image_gallery
the SA reporter should have done some research, not just interviews. he failed.
When I noticed that the state data book was listed as the source for the SA article, I was curious to see if they had some definition of “paid” vs. “unpaid.” As it turns out, the tables (7.44 and 7.45) listed in the data book are not sorted by fees; they merely list the attractions and the visitor counts. It appears the SA reporter created the paid/unpaid categories.
It would be nice to see a correction in the SA showing both tables, since this is such a significant error. Of those listed, I think there are only two unpaid attractions, not five as shown in the table.
HVNP counts every person driving thru on the highway between Volcano and Pahala as a ‘visitor’ their numbers are meaningless.
I don’t think that’s correct. They count people who drive in past the greeting booth.
I thought the point was the PCC was top privately owned paid attraction. I don’t think Dole Plantation actually reports its visitor counts, does it?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/16687215/job-link-now-dole-plantation?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2012/07/02/hawaiis-most-visited-attractions.html?s=image_gallery
if this is not sufficient evidence, what is best thing for a reporter to do?
research. this story lacked it, and it is pretty obvious. THAT is the point.
Plural of anecdote is not data.
Richard, you have a habit of missing things; i shall repeat. if you don’t get it this time, feel free to continue with your postings!
“if this is not sufficient evidence, what is best thing for a reporter to do?
research. this story lacked it, and it is pretty obvious. THAT is the point.”
Natalie,
A “significant” error??? Hardly. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things the story wasn’t very “significant” even if the minor points you all are jumping all over is valid. Hey, it was a big paper today….lots of stories and information. While it’s always fun to poke at a mistake when Ian throws a grenade in the room I think everyone needs to chill. It’s a beautiful Sunday for God’s sake. Get a life. Seriously.
Ian threw a grenade in the room???? lol — you are the one who needs to chill. we are having a CRITICAL discussion about an error in today’s paper, and you go negative and emotional if people DARE to criticize the Star-Advertiser. too bad. a publication by definition opens itself up to public criticism.
Ian and the rest of us will continue commenting on the local media, and you can be as insulting as you please. you just can’t stand criticism, so you post these pompous reactions. (I’m glad Ian lets you do you it – you are your own worst enemy)
meanwhile, at least the SA has the balls to post a correction. if you were editor, nothing would get corrected.
Yes, in my opinion it is a significant error . . . on two fronts. First of all, the tables are a big part of the story, and some readers will not read beyond them.
Second, the sources are listed as the Hawaii data book and the DBEDT, which appears to be not entirely true. This is perhaps more troublesome than the error itself, and brings up another issue about references and sourcing in general.
While I’m posting, one of the tables I cited above is incorrect. It should be table 7.43 instead of 7.45.
this little meltdown reminds me of another…….
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2013/05/amys-baking-company-kicks-us-out.html?page=all
Then how is it that the “state’s No. 1 paid visitor attraction” qualifies as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization? The IRS should revoke the PCC’s tax-exempt status immediately and collect all back taxes due!
Envision Laie is a new community with strip mall and industrial parks at Gunstock Ranch. Do we have “stupid” written on our foreheads? Steven Wheelwright of Brigham Young University Hawaii says it’s for the non-profit university expansion. Right.
The Arizona Memorial site is free. Always has been.
I still marvel at the average bloviator’s continued misunderstanding of what 501(c)3 tax status actually means.
Oooh. Do I smell another taxpayer-initiated lawsuit coming? If so, go get ’em, Mitch!
The PPC has no legitimate exempt purpose, which is precisely why the C&C of Honolulu requires the “theme park” to pay 100% of the commercial rate in real property taxes. No other 501(c)3 in the state has been similarly stripped of its real property tax exemption. It took a court order to do this… So again, why hasn’t the IRS stripped this tourist trap of its clearly undeserved income tax exemption?
T,
Calm down. Breathe, take a deep breath, relax, it ain’t no big thing. That’s all I’m trying to say….no need to get so super hyper. Geez….criticize away. Whatever floats your boat. Any yes, I appreciate Ian allowing varying opinions on a topic. It appears that you only want to preach and sing to your own choir and sensor those that disagree with you. Why so much hostility??
“sensor those that disagree with you”
uh huh. how is this possible when THIS was in my comment:
“(I’m glad Ian lets you do you it – you are your own worst enemy)”
Kettle, you officially called the pot Black when you called me hostile. lol
Polynesian Cultural Center, 2011 501c3 income-tax exempt return, http://www.guidestar.org
Total Reported and Estimated Compensation for Top 10 officers and highest-paid employees: $1,987,121, or nearly $200,000 apiece.
VON ORGILL, PCC president in 2011, reported $314,891, plus an estimated $63,673.
The fundamental legal question: Is such pay “reasonable” for this nonprofit?
Whether it is or not, the IRS might not care.
“With respect to the rules surrounding private inurement, there is little guidance regarding what constitutes reasonableness. It is generally a fact specific analysis. This has contributed to the Internal Revenue Service ignoring smaller violations of this rule. Although the Code does not permit any private inurement and technically any amount of inurement can lead to sanctions, in practice, the IRS doesn’t enforce violations of private inurement unless they are so egregious that the organization is no longer acting “charitable” in the interest of the public, but rather as a “piggy bank” for some private individuals. Only in those situations will the one and only sanction the IRS has available in inurement situations be enforced – the ultimate sanction – revocation of the organization’s tax-exempt status.”
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12866:what-is-reasonable-nonprofit-compensation-a-guide-to-avoid-irs-penalties&Itemid=336
(PCC’s 2012 figures probably will not be available for a couple months)
There’s nothing “charitable” about the PCC, which is clearly a “piggy bank” for the Mormon machine.
Mitch, do you base this steadfast conclusion on
1) opinion?
or
2) evidence? if so, please share.
(based on my posts above, DO NOT EVEN START TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING A PCC SUPPORTER. i need to see actual evidence, not just whining online.)
Thank you.
@T: Evidence. Ian has the facts about the PCC and I hope he will write something up, since it appears our mainstream media is blind to abuses of 501(c)3’s.
Mitch:
You already made your conclusion without a writeup by Ian. Again: where is your evidence?
Um, excuse me, but I give evidence to journalists and lawyers, not to anonymous pos(t)ers. You haven’t a clue.
Natalie,
Good points. I stand corrected.. Have a great day.
The PCC has claimed for at least a decade on all forms of advertising I can think of as being “Hawaii’s number one paid attraction. So what is new other than the fact somebody just realized this after all of this time.