🗣️ When Praise Replaces Probing: The Sentinel's Surrender of Journalistic Independence | BUCKMASTER SHOW
👶 Cradle-to-Crisis Pipeline: Media Mum as Thomure's Budget Axes Early Education Sentinel stays silent on PEEPs cuts while giving platform for city's fiscal storytelling
Based on the Buckmaster Show for 5/9/25, a daily radio show in Tucson, AZ, interviewing local newsmakers. Analysis and opinions are my own.
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
📰🤝🏛️ The Tucson Sentinel 🗣️ interview with City Manager Tim Thomure was a 💋love-fest not a 🔍investigation! They 😊joked while discussing 💰budget cuts but 🤐NEVER MENTIONED the plan to 🪓cut preschool funding for 👶800 low-income children! Parents had 📢packed city council that week but 🙉journalists didn't care! Thomure dropped a 💣bombshell that 🏘️20% of homes sit EMPTY while people 🛌sleep on streets - no follow-up! When a 📞caller mentioned a damning 📊HUD report, the host jumped to 🛡️defend Thomure! The "interview" ended with mutual 👏admiration as Thomure 🏆praised the very journalists supposed to 🔍scrutinize him! We need 🦁fierce independent media, not 🐑compliant lapdogs of 🏛️power!
🗝️ Takeaways
🎭 The interview revealed a troubling theatrical performance where journalists and city officials played their collegial roles instead of engaging in authentic accountability
💰 Tucson's $2.4 billion budget received minimal scrutiny despite looming cuts and federal funding losses
👶 Not a single question was asked about Thomure's proposed cuts to the Pima Early Education Program Scholarships (PEEPs), which would affect 800 low-income children
🏘️ Thomure's bombshell admission that 15-20% of housing units sit vacant during a homelessness crisis went virtually unchallenged
🚌 The 22nd Street Bridge can no longer safely support school buses or emergency vehicles, yet the multi-year delay in addressing this safety issue faced no tough questioning
📊 A HUD report giving Tucson a "substantial substandard designation" for public housing management was quickly contextualized by the host rather than investigated further
🤝 The interview concluded with Thomure praising the Sentinel's coverage, symbolizing the collapse of journalistic independence
The Media-Municipal Marriage: When Watchdogs Become Lapdogs
In the echo chamber of Tucson's media landscape, Friday’s Buckmaster Show broadcast offered a master class in journalistic capitulation that would make Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" read like an understatement.
Guest host Dylan Smith from the Tucson Sentinel and senior reporter Paul Ingram transformed what should have been a rigorous examination of City Manager Tim Thomure's stewardship into a disconcerting display of deference that bordered on sycophancy.
The Friendly Fourth Estate: Journalism's Comfortable Surrender
From the opening pleasantries, listeners were treated to a symphony of soft balls and set-ups that allowed Thomure to navigate Tucson's fiscal crisis with the ease of a millionaire strolling through a gated community.
"You're just trying to dodge the physical abuse," Smith joked at the outset, as though accountability were merely a playful inconvenience rather than a fundamental pillar of democracy. Thomure's response—"Sparring with words is my favorite way to go"—established the convivial tone that would permeate the entire interview like the scent of freshly brewed coffee at a corporate board meeting.
Because nothing says "hard-hitting journalism" like establishing upfront that this is all just a friendly game of verbal patty-cake, right?
When discussing the city's mammoth $2.4 billion budget, Smith helpfully provided contextual cover by noting that much of the money is "not exactly discretionary," effectively handing Thomure a pre-wrapped package of justification for any service cuts that might affect the city's most vulnerable residents.
"That's correct," Thomure eagerly confirmed, no doubt relieved at the softball trajectory. "So probably about two-thirds of that budget is already committed to core services of the city, like public safety, like parks and recreation."
This mutual understanding between interviewer and interviewee—this choreographed dance of question-and-convenient-answer—betrays the fundamental premise of journalistic inquiry. The interview unfolded not as an interrogation of power but as a collaborative presentation, with Smith and Ingram functioning less as independent journalists and more as unwitting extensions of the city's communications department.
Here is another example:
Tucson Sentinel Editor Dylan Smith: "You don't have like a race car driver's suit with a bunch of patches all over it? That's just what I was thinking. I'd like to see that."
City Manager Tim Thomure: "I think we might have to arrange something like that. It'd be cool. It'd be cool."
Smith: "Well, that's how you bolster the city budget, right?"
Thomure: "You know, we're looking at any alternative right now, and that certainly sounds like a good one. Possibly illegal."
Smith: "You know, a city attorney Rankin might have a few things to say about it, but you can safely ignore him, right?"
Thomure: "You know, Mr. Rankin usually can find a way."
Ingram: "I mean, the problem is he's sitting next to you in the city council chambers, so it might be hard to ignore him."
Smith: "Is he kicking you under the table a lot?"
Thomure: "Usually, we're just having little side bets going about how long the meeting will run."
Smith: "You guys haven't been too bad lately, actually. Well, not you guys, but you know, the city council, because it's kind of up to them. But the board of supervisors the other day, oh boy, they had a long one, a doozy."
This exchange vividly illustrates the article's central critique: the complete collapse of professional boundaries between journalists and government officials. Instead of maintaining the necessary critical distance to hold power accountable, Smith and Ingram engage in friendly banter that treats governance as a joke.
The discussion of "race car suits," illegal sponsorship schemes, ignoring legal counsel, and making "side bets" during official meetings reveals a troubling culture of insider camaraderie that completely undermines journalistic independence. The reporters aren't just failing to ask tough questions—they're actively participating in normalizing a flippant attitude toward public service and oversight.
This lighthearted exchange about city officials making private bets during public meetings occurred in the same interview where not a single question was asked about cutting preschool funding for 800 low-income children, addressing the 20% housing vacancy rate during a homelessness crisis, or fixing a bridge that emergency vehicles can't safely cross. The contrast between this jovial insider chat and the serious unaddressed issues facing Tucson residents couldn't be more stark or damning.
Bridging the Accountability Gap
The conversation about the 22nd Street Bridge—a critical piece of infrastructure now restricted from carrying school buses and emergency vehicles—perfectly exemplified this media malpractice.
"So kind of a holding pattern, just waiting for them to give you a rubber stamp?" Smith asked, framing the situation as though the city were a helpless victim of federal bureaucracy rather than an entity that has had years to address this critical safety issue through alternative planning and funding mechanisms.
Thomure gratefully accepted this framing: "That's correct, but that rubber stamp, they might pick up the one that says ‘okay to proceed,’ or they might pick up the one that says ‘cancel them.’"
Left completely unasked: Why wasn't this essential public safety project prioritized years ago? Why wasn't a contingency plan developed, knowing federal funding could always be tenuous? And most importantly, who will bear the consequences if a fire truck needs to take a four-minute detour during an emergency?
This conversational vacuum—where the toughest questions evaporate before they're even articulated—represents a profound disservice to Tucson's residents, particularly those in neighborhoods where emergency response times already lag behind those in wealthier areas.
Housing Crisis: The 20% Solution Never Questioned
Perhaps the most glaring journalistic abdication came during the discussion of Tucson's housing crisis, when Thomure casually dropped what should have been a headline-generating bombshell: approximately 15-20% of Tucson's housing units sit vacant while people sleep on streets and families double up in cramped apartments.
Let that sink in. In a city publicly wringing its hands about insufficient housing, one-fifth of existing units remain empty.
Yet instead of responding with appropriate journalistic outrage—asking why the city hasn't implemented vacancy taxes, stronger tenant protections, or anti-speculation measures—Ingram meekly inquired, "Do you have a sense of why?"
I mean, why interrogate the grotesque contradictions of late-stage capitalism when you can just politely ask for the city's preferred explanation?
Thomure's response was predictably sanitized: "I think a couple of the disconnects are that the cost of housing is higher than people can pay." This framing conveniently absolves the city of responsibility, presenting housing unaffordability as a natural phenomenon—like rainfall or temperature—rather than the direct result of policy choices, market regulation failures, and the deliberate commodification of a basic human need.
At no point did either journalist challenge this framing or ask the obvious follow-up: Given this acknowledged disconnect, what specific policies is the city implementing to bridge this gap? What accountability mechanisms exist for landlords who keep units vacant while receiving tax benefits? How is the city leveraging its regulatory authority to address this humanitarian crisis?
The Caller Who Dared
In a brief moment of actual tension, a caller named Matt Neely referenced a "2023 HUD report that said [it] gave the city a substantial substandard designation for managing public housing" and noted that "the city only used only 86% of its budgeted section eight housing dollars vouchers."
This caller, in thirty seconds, demonstrated more journalistic vigor than the professional journalists managed in their entire segment.
Thomure, momentarily off-script, began by attempting to discredit the source: "I usually don't respond too much to the Tucson crime-free coalition directly because I'm not going to cast aspersions on the quality of the information they provide, but that's not always a full accounting of accurate information."
Translation: When confronted with criticism, first attack the messenger—Media Management 101.
To his credit, Thomure ultimately acknowledged, "I think it's a fair criticism to say the city is not exactly knocking it out of the park in some of the areas of our housing programs and our management of some of our properties." But this moment of candor came only after his attempt to undermine the critique's source—a tactic that went completely unchallenged by the supposed journalists conducting the interview.
Smith's response to this rare moment of accountability? He immediately pivoted to providing context that softened the critique, explaining why Section 8 vouchers might go unused due to landlord reluctance—effectively doing Thomure's job for him.
Heaven forbid we allow criticism of city management to stand on its own without rushing to provide exculpatory context.
The Incestuous Media Ecosystem
The interview reached its nauseating crescendo when Thomure delivered his parting gift: "I go to the Tucson Sentinel for my news and I appreciate what you do as well because I think the Sentinel has been a great addition to local news in Tucson and I think you do a fair and fine job."
This moment—this literal endorsement of the very media outlet supposedly tasked with holding the city accountable—should send shivers down the spine of anyone who understands the essential adversarial relationship that must exist between government and press in a functioning democracy.
Nothing screams "independent journalism" like receiving a glowing performance review from your subject.
The exchange highlights a troubling dynamic in local media ecosystems: the cultivation of insider access often comes at the expense of critical distance. When journalists become part of the same social and professional milieu as the officials they cover, tough questions become impolite infractions against an unspoken code of collegiality.
This dynamic doesn't require explicit corruption or bad intentions—it's simply the natural erosion of boundaries that occurs when the watchdogs start attending the same dinner parties as those they're supposed to be watching.
The Questions Never Asked
The interview's most damning aspect wasn't what was discussed but what remained conspicuously unmentioned:
No questions about the city's enforcement (or lack thereof) of its "no discrimination on source of income" ordinance, which Thomure himself mentioned was intended to help Section 8 voucher holders secure housing
No exploration of how the city justifies vacant units amid a housing crisis, or whether vacancy taxes have been considered
No inquiry into how budget cuts might disproportionately impact low-income communities versus wealthy neighborhoods
No questions about the corporatization of the housing market and whether large investors are driving up costs
No challenging of the city's resistance to more progressive revenue options like luxury taxes or higher developer impact fees
These omissions represent not just missed journalistic opportunities but a fundamental dereliction of the fourth estate's core purpose: to interrogate power on behalf of the public, particularly those with the least access to decision-makers.
Preschool Precarity: The Cradle-to-Crisis Pipeline
In the most stunning display of journalistic negligence, neither Smith nor Ingram thought to mention the elephant stomping through Tucson's vulnerable communities: Thomure's budget proposal to slash funding for the Pima Early Education Program Scholarships (PEEPs), which helps low-income families access quality preschool education.
Just days before this lovefest of an interview, parents and early childhood advocates had packed the city council meeting, pleading for the program's survival. Yet somehow, this dramatic display of civic engagement—this literal room full of desperate families—warranted not a single question from our intrepid "journalists."
Nothing says "holding power accountable" like completely ignoring cuts that affect the community's most vulnerable children, am I right?
Since PEEPs launched in 2021, the city has already whittled its contribution from $1 million down to $750,000. Now, Thomure's budget proposal threatens to eliminate it entirely—a fact that apparently didn't merit even passing mention during the 22-minute conversation about the city's fiscal priorities.
"I'm here to remind you that one of the values our community rests on is dedication to quality care and schooling for our youngest and most vulnerable children," Marissa Johnson, mother of a three-year-old PEEPs recipient, had told the council just days earlier. "We know that defunding education today will have negative consequences tomorrow."
But who needs to hear from affected parents when we can listen to Thomure wax philosophical about budget abstractions?
The proposed cuts would threaten education access for over 800 students residing in the city of Tucson, disproportionately affecting those in the 85705 zip code, one of the city's most economically challenged areas. As Tiffany Bucciarelli Fay, director of early childhood education at Amphitheater Public School District, pointedly told the council: "If the city of Tucson truly wants the 85705 to thrive, their citizens to live healthier, more productive and prosperous lives, then funding early childhood education is a must."
During budget discussions, labor representatives highlighted that city employees hadn't received merit increases in almost 20 years, yet the administration found money for corporate subsidies. As Desi Navarro from CWA Local 7000 pointedly asked:
"We tell you that we need a sustainable living wage. You come with a 1.2% offer... You come to us with small business week and why you don't have money for the employees in these unions when you're giving Home Depot $520,000 in that budget, Bass Pro Shops $280,000, Texas Instruments $729,000, and SkyWest $494,000 for economic simulation."
Corporate welfare continues while workers are told to tighten their belts. This isn't a funding shortage—it's a priority shortage.
From Tuesday’s Tucson City Council Meeting.
But hey, who needs educational equity when we've got budgetary efficiency, right? Nothing supports Tucson's future like sabotaging its children's educational foundation!
The silence on this issue during the Buckmaster Show interview speaks volumes about the selective attention of our local media gatekeepers. When parents—predominantly working-class and often people of color—mobilize to protect their children's educational opportunities, they remain invisible. But the microphone stands ready when the city manager needs a platform to justify budget decisions.
This calculated omission reveals the class character of our media ecosystem more starkly than any direct statement could. The educational futures of 800 low-income children apparently don't warrant the journalistic oxygen that bridge repairs and federal funding uncertainties receive—a prioritization that perfectly mirrors the city's own budgetary values.
How This Affects You, Dear Reader
From today’s Tucson Agenda:
The county’s complaints are getting pedantic. And frankly, we’re sick of it.
They’re asking for corrections on things that aren’t incorrect.
At this point, they’re not trying to ensure facts get through — they’re trying to shift the narrative.
And they’re making it public if we don’t acquiesce to their demands.
To us, this isn’t a sign that we need to change how we do things. Not at all.
It’s a sign that we’re doing some real reporting. They don’t make these kinds of complaints when reporters re-print their press releases.
The Tucson Sentinel seems to be too cozy with the folks at both the city and county. You heard it live on the radio today; it was almost uncomfortable to listen to.
This journalistic failure impacts every Tucson resident in tangible ways. When city officials know they'll face only the gentlest questioning—when they can rely on media figures to help contextualize and soften criticism—accountability evaporates. And without accountability, there's little incentive to prioritize the needs of regular people over the preferences of Tucson's wealthy and connected.
The vacant housing units that Thomure so casually mentioned represent real human suffering—families doubled up in too-small apartments, people sleeping in cars, workers commuting hours because they can't afford to live near their jobs. The unrepaired infrastructure means actual safety risks for communities. The budget decisions made in the absence of rigorous public scrutiny will determine which neighborhoods thrive and which are left behind.
This isn't just about journalistic ethics—it's about whether democracy in Tucson serves all residents or just the privileged few.
When local media fails to ask hard questions, they become unwitting accomplices in maintaining systems of inequality. The friendly chuckles exchanged between Smith and Thomure might seem harmless, but they represent a profound breakdown in the accountability mechanisms that democracy requires to function for everyone.
The Conservative Counterargument (And Why It's Wrong)
Of course, defenders of this journalistic approach might argue that antagonism doesn't produce better information—that maintaining cordial relationships allows for greater access and more candid conversations with officials.
Yes, because power has always voluntarily disclosed its own shortcomings when asked nicely. That's definitely how systemic change happens.
This perspective fundamentally misunderstands journalism's purpose. The goal isn't to make officials comfortable or to maintain access—it's to extract information that helps the public understand how power is being exercised on their behalf, especially information that those in power might prefer to downplay or conceal.
Cordiality between journalists and officials doesn't serve the public interest when it comes at the expense of accountability. The relationship between media and government should be professional but necessarily adversarial—more prosecutor and witness than friend and friend.
A Path Forward: Real Journalism for Real Democracy
Despite this discouraging example, there remains hope for truly independent local journalism in Tucson. This hope lies in supporting media platforms that aren't embedded in the city's power structure—outlets that center the experiences of ordinary Tucsonans, especially those from marginalized communities most affected by budget cuts and policy failures.
The Three Sonorans remains committed to providing that critical perspective—asking the questions that comfortable insiders won't, challenging the narratives that serve power rather than people, and ensuring that the voices least heard in the corridors of city hall find amplification through our platform.
We don't expect holiday cards from the city manager's office. We don't anticipate friendly banter with officials whose policies we scrutinize. And we certainly don't measure our success by whether those in power praise our coverage.
Instead, we measure our impact by whether our reporting helps ordinary Tucsonans understand the forces shaping their lives and communities—and whether our work contributes to a more just, equitable, and transparent city government.
If you value this kind of genuinely independent analysis, consider supporting Three Sonorans Substack. Your subscription helps ensure we can continue providing the uncompromising coverage our community deserves—the kind that doesn't end with mutual appreciation societies between reporters and officials but with a clearer understanding of how power works in our city.
What questions would you have asked Tim Thomure if you had been conducting the interview? Do you think local media is serving Tucson's diverse communities equally, or are some voices consistently privileged over others? How can independent journalism better hold local officials accountable? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!
Great reporting and superb analysis!
Tucson has a funding problem, but it's biggest problem is its failure to set priorities.