A link which will undoubtedly be of interest to anyone interested in press issues is
The site link on that page will lead to other information about press issues, and about the AP.
In this community, many people are not content to act like couch consumers, particularly about our local paper. We could use a serious discussion about press issues. Unfortunately, the critiques of our paper too often seem to be pissed-off people taking wild swings, rather than productive discussion. People on the left and the right have, at times, made poorly thought-out charges; and the attitude of certain past editors and publishers at the Reformer has not been helpful.
Personally, I find the charge of “liberal bias” disturbing, because it shifts the focus from fairness, to political position. Would a conservative who is unhappy that factual inaccuracies give a particular news story a liberal spin, be content with a rightwing paper that routinely runs stories with pro-Republican distortions? If we are serious about press integrity, then the criteria for judging the paper’s caliber should be a higher standard than whether it caters to our own political preferences.
Because we live in the most politically progressive County in a progressive state, it is an almost inevitable consequence of market forces that the paper will reflect this community in its editorial policies, and even in the news it selects to report. But it is never inevitable that the paper in any community will practice fair reporting or that it will be of high caliber. If I lived in Texas, it would be like knocking my head against the wall to complain about conservative editorials. But it always makes sense to talk about high standards of reporting. Of course, in order to carry on an intelligent conversation, it is necessary to document the facts and to understand the principles.
When the current editor took the helm at the Reformer after the previous editor was fired, a delegation of local activists visited the paper with a petition, which they presented to the new editor in an angry, personally confrontational manner. They had a valid point that the Reformer had failed in its responsibility to cover the firing of the editor in the same manner that they would have reported a significant event somewhere else. A major test for any newspaper is whether that paper can cover a controversy which involves itself as though it were reporting on a third party. Not surprisingly, it is almost inevitable that newspapers fail in these circumstances. An editor caught between his or her responsibilities as a member of the 4th estate, and orders from the owner is not likely to go down in flames and lose his or her job in order to make a fruitless gesture.
But the group protesting were, themselves, in no moral position to point fingers.
Not long before the editor was fired, she herself had remained silent when reporter Eesha Williams was fired, and then when 20-year veteran Night Editor James Pentland was fired. When Williams was fired, the Keene Sentinel ran a story reporting that Williams claimed he was fired for union organizing, but that Reformer management claimed it was for a violation of journalistic ethics. Two days later, the Reformer ran an very short piece, written by her, which stated that Williams had been fired for violating journalist ethics, with no mention of Williams’ claim to the contrary. In this instance, there was thunderous silence from our local, activist community. Apparently, her well-earned reputation as a leftist partisan, made her exempt from criticism, regardless this ethical compromise, and regardless of other unprofessional conduct.
If we hope to be taken seriously about demanding fairness, then we ourselves must model an even-handed standard.
In my vision of an improved world, people with diametrically opposite political viewpoints would find common ground in their quest for fairness. In the spirit of enlightened self-interest, conservatives and progressives would actually enjoy working together for fair reporting, and for the creation of a free market place for ideas. Unfortunately, it seems that conservatives who seem to understand this concept, suddenly try to squash the expression of viewpoints they disagree with, as soon as they get into a position of power. When I was coming of age in the late 1950s and the 1960s, it was understood that progressives would always defend the expression of unpopular beliefs, including those they disagree with. It is a major disappointment to me these days that many progressives seem as apt as right-wingers to try to shout down or insult those they disagree with. Surely we can all do better.
In practice, it is more often the right than the left to suppress dialogue, but this may only be because the right is more often in control. Does it mean that you are good simply because you lack claws? Regardless of one's position, we really must put ourselves into the other person's shoes if we ever hope to unite around our common humanity.
The current editor and the current publisher at the Reformer are decent people who are trying hard to improve the paper. They are setting a good tone for the rest of the staff. A couple of times recently, I sent polite email messages to the editor and to reporters to point out flaws in certain news stories. To my amazement, the validity of my concerns was affirmed, and I even received an apology (which I found somewhat embarrassing). This openness to discussion about newspaper issues is a major and significant change: a sharp contrast with anything I have seen at the Reformer during the 22 years that I have subscribed.
Who knows how long this will go on before MediaNews Group realizes that they have an excellent editor, and transfer him somewhere else where they feel he is needed? While the situation at the Reformer is so auspicious, it is an excellent time for interested people in the community to engage them in dialogue. This is a good time to begin open, public conversations about the role of our local paper in the community. It is a good time for the local 4th estate to discuss some of the dilemmas and challenges they face in covering the news, and for concerned readers to discuss our hopes and expectations.