A little parable about how news is made

 The Express-News has been covering a running story about funding for the arts in San Antonio. This is a big deal.

I live on the West Side, in a neighborhood that might be the poorest in the city. But this area is rich in public art, especially murals. Some are publicly funded.

This city, despite its poverty, is beautiful in a way that many wealthier cities are not.

The policy seems to be that about 1 percent of any bond issue goes to art. City voters are being asked to approve another bond issue.

Funding mechanisms are often complicated, and there’s been a move, given the shortage of affordable housing, to exempt housing projects from that 1 percent “tithe.” Fewer art projects would mean that more housing units could be built.

A group of artists spoke against cuts to funding for public art. We’ve had a spirited debate, in print, about the value of art and what it means to the city.

All that public concern is healthy. But there’s a problem with the debate:

As far as I can tell, funding for the arts from the 2017 bond issue amounted to $8.5 million, while funding for the arts from the proposed bond issue should be $13.2 million.

The debate entails a conceptual problem. The idea of a “cut” is not a helpful way of looking at this picture.

There is still room for a productive debate about funding for public art in this community. But it’s not the debate we’re having.

I’m interested because I spent my working life as a newspaper reporter and editor. I was interested in the affairs of my community, far more than in the affairs of this state, the nation or the larger world. And, often, when you begin looking into these problems at a community level you find problems like this.

Honest people misunderstand. They don’t have a clear picture. They think one thing is about to happen, and are simply mistaken. Or the possible consequences are a lot more complicated than anyone on social media has managed to convey.

How you sort out these misunderstandings is vital. If you suggest that one side of the debate is mentally challenged or disturbed, you have different kinds of debates in the future. If you can sort out the misunderstandings and keep people engaged in public affairs without making them feel like fools or enraging them, you can keep a wide spectrum of people with different views involved in the commonweal.

That’s a valuable asset in any community. And, as goes the community, so goes the state, the nation, the world.