As first reported this morning by the Maine Wire – a politically conservative media outlet — a Waterville public teacher is now facing scrutiny and widespread backlash after making a post on social media that calls for people to physically harm President Donald Trump and his supporters.
Notice how I chose my words carefully. Using the words “ki**” or “assasi**te” in connection to the President of the United States can land you in serious hot water.
I know this lesson better than most everyone else who is commenting on this now viral story that has been picked up by mainstream media outlets across the country.
“The Secret Service has the perfect opportunity, if they choose to step up and take it. You are the ones with power. Coordinate. Take out every single person who supports Trump’s illegal, immoral, unconstitutional acts. Look at the sycophants and give them what they’re asking for,” St. Germain wrote on her Facebook post.
As expected, the vast majority of commenters criticized the teacher, calling into question her mental health and her motives for such a fiery post.
A screenshot of St.Germain’s Facebook comment posted by the Maine Wire
No matter where you land on the political spectrum, you gotta feel sorry for both the school superintendent and principal. Their offices were reportedly flooded with calls from angry and worried parents.
“If I had the skill set required, I would take them out myself,” St. Germain also wrote on her social media post.
According to the Bangor Daily News, the U.S. Secret Service is aware of St. Germain’s post.
A big no-no
There is no doubt that Trump has created controversy and deep resentment because of his controversial policies, inflammatory statements and his confrontational personality, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to encourage a physical attack on him.
Public school teachers like St. Germain are entrusted by taxpayers to use good judgment.
It remains to be seen if St. Germain will face any repercussions from the school department for her inflammatory, thoughtless and emotionally charged public statements.
So, why do I claim to know so much about this story?
For that, we need to get into the “Way Back Time Machine” and set the dial to 1984.
Ronald Reagan had just been reelected for a second term as president of the United States. I was 20 years old, working as a third-shift janitor at McDonald’s. I was an avowed liberal and blamed Reagan and his “trickle-down” economic policies for all of my troubles.
I was actively involved with a group named PAUSICA (Portlanders Against U.S. Involvement in Central America). I was reading books by Angela Davis, the vice -presidential candidate for the Communists USA party. In my spare time, I participated in nightly vigils with other malcontents in Monument Square, protesting a ramp up of nuclear weapons.
For Christ’s sake, I was pretty much a reincarnated version of Lee Harvey Oswald.
One night, while feeling particularly frustrated about Reagan, I made a remark saying someone “should do something about him” and if no one else was willing to, I would take on the task myself. As you can probably imagine, those were not my exact words.
A co-worker apparently called the Portland Police Department to report my comments about the president.
Before we proceed, let’s also remember that I had just been discharged from my third, involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. I was estranged from my family. I had no girlfriend or close friends.
I was a low-wage underachiever. In high school, I had pinned all my hopes to a career in the U.S. Air Force. But that did not go the way I intended. Although I received an honorable discharge, I considered myself a failure; now 20 years old with no future.
As you can imagine, the life I was living set off a lot of red flags for the U.S. Secret Service. For Christ’s sake, I was pretty much a reincarnated version of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Secret Service asked to meet me at the Federal Building on Forest Avenue. They conducted a rigorous interview, took handwriting samples and a fresh set of finger-prints.
They let me go, but with a stern warning. Do it again, and you’ll find yourself in jail, they told me. I was pretty much scared straight, though I lost my job as a janitor at McDonald’s.
My view of Ms. St. Germain’s public rant?
She needs help. Pronto. I understand that Trump can make people very angry, but you simply can’t call for someone to help him shuffle off his mortal coil, especially if you hold a position of public trust.
We deserve better.
Never miss another installment! Subscribe for free today!
Yesterday was “Career Day” at the Biddeford Intermediate School, an annual event that gives third, fourth and fifth-graders an opportunity to explore various career fields.
I was asked to be one of the many presenters, but I knew that I was in trouble as soon as I walked through the front-door, clutching a stack of old newspapers, a reporter’s notebook and two pens (always two).
The other presenters were so much cooler and interesting. The police K-9 officer and her dog showed up, a firefighter arrived wearing his helmet with a large oxygen tank on his back. There was a nurse with a stethoscope draped around her neck.
For Pete’s sake, Graig Morin of Brown Dog Trucking even brought one of his 18-wheeler trucks for the kids to explore.
Admittedly, I was a bit nervous as I waited for my first of three-groups of students to arrive in my designated classroom. It’s been a while since I have been grilled by a group of nine and ten-year-olds.
If you’re not careful, they can really get into your psyche and throw off your whole game. For example, during one of the Q & A sessions, one young lady asked me if I was afraid of heights. I quickly admitted that I am terrified of heights.
“What about snakes?” was her follow-up question. “Yes,” I responded, I am also very afraid of snakes.”
A quarter century? Really?
On the night before the event, I ventured into my basement and hauled out an old-cargo chest that holds scores of old copies of the weekly Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier. I was in a rush, so I just reached in and grabbed five copies, paying no particular attention to the dates or the stories.
I have worked for several newspapers, but most people ‘round here equate me to my fun-filled days as the Courier’s editor (1997-2006) and my infamous weekly column, All Along the Watchtower.
As I was waiting for the kids to arrive, I started flipping through the old papers. Yes, I know that all past issues of the Courier are available on microfiche at the McArthur Library, but this seemed like a more practical way to make my presentation.
As luck would have it, the papers I grabbed were all from April of 2000, exactly 25 years ago. It seems like yesterday, but it was a quarter-century ago. A quarter century.
Just a few weeks ago, the Courier’s new owners (the Portland Press Herald’s parent company) abruptly announced that they will no longer offer print versions of the paper that had been delivered to every household in the Biddeford-Saco area since 1989.
When I heard that news, I didn’t realize how deeply that weekly paper was connected to the community. A wave of nostalgia washed over me as I flipped through the pages of yesteryear.
Time may change me. But I can’t trace time.
The kids were eager to pore through old copies of the Courier. Sure, I still write news and opinion, but I can’t imagine 25 years from now that a bunch of kids would be so excited about reviewing a web site.
It was interesting to see what caught their eyes and their imagination. Each of the newspapers had a full back-page ad from Marc Motors. Apparently, in April of 2000, you could buy a 1998 Pontiac Sunfire for $10,995 or a weekly payment of $38. Or you could get a 1997 Ford F-150 for $17,995 (or $65 per week).
In April 2025, we ran a contest: Find the Mistakes in the Courier. The person who found the most verifiable mistakes each week got a free lunch at the Wonderbar. We were all glad when that contest ended.
A lot of the names have changed, but the news back then was not much different than it is today. Ironically, one of the headlines told readers that Biddeford voters may soon be asked to approve construction of a new school to address overcrowding. That school? Yup, the Biddeford Intermediate School, where I was sitting yesterday morning.
The Old Orchard Beach School budget was up $500,000. There was an explosion of a propane tank at the former Maine Energy trash incinerator in downtown Biddeford. Another story explained how Biddeford’s tax rate would increase $1.50 if MERC left town. The top five taxpayers then were MERC, IBC (Nissen Bakeries), Central Maine Power, Walmart and D.K. Associates Limited.
Saco residents were faced with a possible pay-per-bag trash disposal fee, a downtown landlord in Biddeford found himself in hot water with the city’s code enforcement office.
On and on. Into infinity and beyond.
I asked the kids if any of them remember the Yellow Pages. They were stumped; their brows furrowed with intrigue. It’s quite likely that someday the same fate will finally overcome print newspapers.
There’s no denying it. This is not your father’s news industry anymore. That’s good news, but it’s also very bad news.
I’m writing this because there were three significant local changes in the news industry that happened in just the last two weeks.
More about that in just a moment.
Traditional, legacy media outlets are no longer the sole guardians of truth and justice, and that fact — like it or not – will impact you — and it might even hurt you.
For centuries, newspapers, (and then later) radio and television news operations kept an immeasurable amount of gravitas in their pants’ pocket, like so many nickels and dimes. The publishers, editors (and oftentimes the reporters) took your trust in them for granted.
Nearly 300 years ago, Edmund Burke, a member of British Parliament, reportedly coined the term “Fourth Estate” to describe the press, pointing out its obligations as a check in government oversight and its responsibility to frame political issues as well as to be an advocate for the general public.
Pretty big responsibility, eh?
The industry that was once the trusted and almost sole gatekeeper of vital public news and information is now scrambling, desperately trying to find a way to remain relevant or at least financially solvent.
So, what are the threats and challenges facing both you as a news consumer and traditional media outlets?
First and foremost, social media platforms are taking over the distribution of news and information. There are no more paperboys and even newsrooms are shifting away from brick-and-mortar structures.
In survey after survey; in poll after poll, one fact becomes abundantly clear. Consumers want their news on their schedule (on demand). Readers also try to skirt paywalls, no longer seeing the value of paid news subscriptions.
Readers today gravitate toward click-bait headlines and “news” websites that match their own political ideology.
Photo: The Death of the Newspaper Industry | John W. Hayes)
Never-ending competition, a 24-7 news cycle and the disturbing rise of AI (artificial intelligence) all remain as threats to established and not-so-established news outlets.
And to top it off, reader trust in traditional news outlets is plummeting faster than shares of K-Mart stock.
In his Nov. 29, 2022 opinion column, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby pointed to a recent Gallup report, which revealed that just one out of three Americans claimed to have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the media.
We could talk all day about the national news scene and the spiraling demise of legacy media, but let’s take a deeper look at the news on a local level, right here where it hurts the most.
Today, almost everyone is a journalist – or so they believe. All you need is a keyboard and an internet connection and it’s off to the races.
While I love certain aspects of “citizen journalism” it does sort of invite a Wild, Wild West approach in reporting news.
While I love certain aspects of “citizen journalism” it does sort of invite a Wild, Wild West approach in reporting news.
These citizens journalists typically do not have editors or the resources of an editorial board. They have no professional training. Ethics and objectivity are now electives, no longer requirements.
In other ways, however, these pesky citizen journalists and their social media followers do keep some much needed pressure on those Fourth Estate guys, the traditional legacy media outlets.
We’re not in Kansas anymore
Speaking of legacy, traditional media, the Bangor Daily News (BDN) – Maine’s preeminent source of political news – decided last week to shut down its editorial board. The paper will no longer have an Op-Ed (Opinion-Editorial) section.
I found that news strange. It struck me as counter-intuitive, especially since so many people are saying that readers are flocking toward opinion and away from objective news reporting.
In a Jan. 24 column, the BDN described the move as “the end of an era.”
Susan Young, the paper’s opinion editor, said the news was “bittersweet.”
“Far too few people read opinion content, so we have to try different things,” Young told me during an online conversation, saying the decision was influenced by the paper’s digital analytics.
The BDN’s decision will also mean the end of rigorous and highly regarded opinion columns from people like Amy Fried on the political left to Matt Gagnon on the political right.
Still closer to home, the publishers of the Biddeford-Saco Courier announced on Wednesday that they will now offer their subscribers a digital weekly update via email.
That “announcement” dropped exactly two weeks after I formally launched the Biddeford Gazette, a free digital newspaper dedicated to covering Biddeford news, opinion and events.
For more than 30 years, the Courier has relied upon free delivery of its print publication at newsstands or tossed into the driveways of private homes.
The Courier was founded and locally owned by David and Carolyn Flood. A few years ago, the paper was then sold to the owners of the Portland Press Herald who also own a number of weekly and daily publications.
Courier reporter Sydney Richelieu announced the “inaugural edition” of “Biddeford-Saco | Now” in an email sent to subscribers. The move, she said, is designed to offer readers another option in finding out what is happening in their community.
I have some unsolicited advice for Sydney and the Courier’s editors, please stop printing press releases and then labeling them with a byline of “Staff Reports.”
Otherwise, I am quite pleased that you guys finally want to step up your game in covering local news.
To be honest, I have a bit of an advantage over the other guys. I’m a Biddeford native and resident, and I have been covering Biddeford for nearly three decades. I have a stockpile of sources and lots of time on my hands.
Just a few days ago, a close friend of mine remarked that other local publications are now starting to pay more attention (deservedly so) to the city of Biddeford, since I launched the Gazette.
That’s actually really good news, especially for the people of Biddeford.
The other guys may not like the fact that I am now in the mix, but they should remember the folks at the Journal Tribune were none too happy when the Courier was launched in 1989; and the folks at the Courier were none too happy that Saco Bay News came along in 2019 and showed off the nimble advantages of being a digital publication.
Increased competition does not help the Courier, Saco Bay News or the Biddeford Gazette, but it does keep a fire lit under our asses; and that is good news for readers.
The people of Biddeford should not have to rely upon just one reporter for the news that matters to them.
Competition keeps reporters motivated, but more importantly – it keeps them in check.
The Biddeford Gazette is not trying to put anyone else out of business. In fact, the opposite is true.
The Biddeford Gazette uses its own social media pages on Facebook, BlueSky and X to round up and share local news stories from other media companies. No one else does that.
You read that right. We take the time to share news from the other guys on our social media pages. And when you click to read those stories, you are not directed to our website, instead all the postings will link automatically to whatever source produced the news, whether it’s Saco Bay News, the Courier or WGME-TV.
Please visit our new Facebook page and follow us to experience a new level of local news coverage.
Whenever or wherever news about Biddeford is published, we will be there to make sure you know about it.
That’s my mission. That’s my passion.
I value your trust.
I will not stop.
Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!
For better or worse, I have a reputation in my hometown. I am the guy who holds local and state politicians’ feet to the fire. I rarely hesitate to publicly criticize elected officials when I think they have screwed up or acted inappropriately.
Biddeford Mayor Marty Grohman
My column, All Along The Watchtower, debuted on the pages of the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier in 1999. Since then, it has appeared in other publications, most recently on the pages of Saco Bay News. I always tell people that I do not play favorites. I call ’em like I see ’em.
My column was based on the prolific work of syndicated columnist Art Buchwald and also well-known Maine columnist, Al Diamon, author of Politics and Other Mistakes
Well, folks — in the interest of fairness and full disclosure — I think that pendulum of criticism should swing both ways.
In this installment, we will focus on some of my bad (and rather outrageous) behavior over the last few days.
In short, I owe an apology to Biddeford Mayor Marty Grohman and his family; and to City Council President Liam LaFountain.
If you’ve been paying attention lately to Biddeford politics, you already know that things have more or less blown-up over the last couple of weeks.
Our municipal elections were held only six months ago. Longtime Biddeford mayor Alan Casavant opted not to seek a seventh consecutive term. Voters chose former city councilor and state representative Marty Grohman to take over the helm at City Hall. Grohman won that seat with a comfortable margin of 54 percent over former state senator Susan Deschambault.
In that same election, LaFountain was unopposed for a second term on the council, representing Ward 7 (my ward). A few weeks later, the city council voted 6-3 to name LaFountain as the new council president.
Biddeford was getting a fresh start; a new perspective. Sure, the city was — and is — facing several challenges, but there is also ample room for optimism. Biddeford’s storied reputation of political bickering and City Hall drama seemed to be fading fast. We were beginning a second decade of being a more positive and attractive community.
Biddeford, the sixth largest city in Maine, suddenly found itself in an enviable place as a destination for fine dining, a boutique hotel, pristine beaches, thriving business parks and easy access to state highways.
Things were looking up. Yes, we are struggling — as are many Maine communities — with affordable housing and a growing unhoused population, but overall, the future seemed bright,
I have been covering the city of Biddeford for the better part of the last 30 years. We were in some unchartered waters.
Biddeford City Council President Liam LaFountain
Sure, we’ve had councilors resign before, but never two at basically the same time. The timing of the resignations became an issue. One would require a special election, the other — coming just a few days later — would require an appointment by the mayor without the need for public input.
Grohman was caught off-guard. LaFountain was caught off-guard. I was caught off-guard. Strange stuff. Lots of moving parts. Lots of questions. What’s the intent of the city charter in these situations? The city clerk was scheduled to go on vacation. A brand-new deputy clerk just started her job last week.
Yes, many people reached out to me. Some passed on rumors that I ignored. Others provided valuable information. Others were simply flabbergasted and raising questions about how the resignations should be handled.
Now, it’s not just Saco Bay News watching City Hall. Other media outlets are now reporting and paying attention to what is happening at Biddeford City Hall.
Let me be perfectly clear. My mental health issues are NOT and never have been an excuse for my stupid decisions. They do, however, provide a bit of context for what I am about to share.
I have a Bipolar-1 (manic-depressive) diagnosis, as well as severe anxiety and frequent bouts of schizoaffective disorder behaviors. Trust me. It can be challenging, especially for my wife and other family members. But it is NOT an excuse for my bad behavior last week.
Before the announcement of the city council resignations earlier this month, I was hard at work on three significant news stories. Sometimes, it takes weeks, even months, to put together significant news stories.
All three of these stories are connected to Biddeford City Hall. You’ll be reading about them in the near future. But the sudden and unexpected resignations threw a proverbial wrench into my workload.
Again, not an excuse for my boorish behavior, but mentioned here for context.
The journalism game can by hyper competitive. I have always been a competitive guy. The media industry is not a 9-5, Monday thru Friday gig.
Today, more than ever before, the media is a non-stop, 24-7 enterprise. We all want the story first. We all want your attention. Sure, we’re also doing a public service because we all basically believe in your right to timely, accurate and unfiltered information about your community but basically, we’re always competing.
In a recent blog post, I wrote “there is right way and a wrong way to resign from public office.”
Well, there is also a right way and wrong way to go about writing a news story. Last weekend, I chose the wrong way.
I almost literally had a meltdown while trying to obtain information about how the council vacancies would be handled. I was rude and belligerent. Sort of a “Do you know who I am?” moment of delusional grandeur.
I mean, really. I wasn’t working on the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Scandal or the criminal trial of a former U.S. president.
Dude, it’s the weekend. Calm down, It’s a story about Biddeford City Hall intrigue, not the apocalypse. Get a grip.
On Friday, I called LaFountain, pressing for information. He was out of the country, but as always returned my call almost immediately with dignity and grace. He was also feeling pressure and doing his best to figure out the next right step. He was calm, respectful and doing his best to answer my questions.
I was acting in a complete opposite fashion. I wasn’t angry with him, but I found myself screaming into the phone, full of indignation, almost frothing at the mouth, my words laced with profanity. I was screaming and ranting about other people.
Liam was patient, thoughtful and respectful. He didn’t even try to interrupt my rant. I mumbled a half-assed apology for interrupting his vacation with my call. He actually thanked me for calling, said he understood my frustration and said I should call him back if I had more questions.
A few hours later, on Saturday morning I awoke with a proverbial hair across my ass. It’s 6:30 a.m. I am drinking coffee at my desk, muttering to myself. I’ll be damned if I am going to allow them to block the flow of public information, I tell myself. My blood pressure was soaring. They made a mistake of messing with a guy who buys ink by the barrel, I muttered.
My chest is puffed out now. My dog is begging for my attention, but I ignore her and instead begin crafting a story that I wanted to publish later that day. I wanted to have the news first. That was all that mattered to me.
It is now 7:45 a.m. Saturday. I send Mayor Grohman a terse text message. In essence, I tell him that it’s in his own best interest to call me back pronto. I am writing a story, with or without his input. At 8:17 a.m., I receive a text from the mayor. “I’ll email. Deadline?”
I hate text messages. It’s just so much easier to have a quick two-minute phone call, that way I can easily ask a follow-up question or for clarification. But whatever. You can’t really blame Grohman for being cautious with me. I have been acting like an arrogant prick for more than 72 hours. Grohman is smart. He’s probably pissed, most likely annoyed but he is responding on a Saturday morning.
I get the email from him with his official statement a few hours later. I then add fuel to the fire by sending him a series of pissy text messages. I ignored the fact that he was at a family function.
They say that all’s well that ends well. In this case, Marty and I had the opportunity to clear the air this week. He wasn’t his typical genial self. He was pissed and he (in a nice way) let me know that. I had to take it.
He was right. I was wrong. My judgement was clouded by my both my ego and my hyper-competitive nature. We got things squared away. We found a lot of common ground. Ultimately, we both want what is best for the city. We are both trying to stay ahead of a rather crazy curve of events.
I owe both Marty Grohman and Liam LaFountain a sincere apology for my belligerent behavior. They both acted much better than me, and I could stand to learn a valuable lesson from each of them.
Me Culpa.
Like, I said at the beginning: I call ’em, like I see ’em.
Never miss another installment of Lessons in Mediocrity. Subscribe for free today!
You see it from time to time, spread all over social media with reckless abandon.
Defying history, logic and reasoning, there is a growing chorus of complaints about “kids today,” and/or about how “life was better in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s” and even the 1980s.
Social media platforms such as Facebook are plastered by memes that suggest the world is going to hell in a handbasket. These memes and the people who share them point to a simpler time; a better time for children and all of us.
Photo from Pinterest web site
Is it accurate? Are kids today so much worse than the kids of the past? Was life really better in the 1960s?
To borrow from Billy Joel: The good ol’ days weren’t always so good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.
Nostalgia is nice, but it often distorts reality.
Complaints about “kids today” are usually generated by people over 50 years of age. The misgivings about today’s youth are often used as weapons in the war of generations, where there is a growing divide between aging “baby Boomers” and the nearly insufferable Millennials.
Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, so-named because of the population explosion that took place in the United States following the end of WW II.
Boomers today range in age from 60 to 78. This group was preceded by the so-called “Silent Generation,” people born between 1928 and 1945. It is commonly thought that this moniker derives from the notion that children “were to be seen and not heard.” This group represents folks between the ages of 79 to 96.
And yet the so-called “Greatest Generation,” is almost completely gone. The Greatest Generation moniker was created by NBC News journalist Tom Brokaw and his best-selling 1998 book of the same name.
These were the people who came of age during the Great Depression and the 1940s, Brokaw said, and many of them fought in World War II.” In his book, Brokaw described them as “a generation of towering achievement and modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years when they were participants in and witness to sacrifices of the highest order.…This is the greatest generation any society has produced.”
On the other end of the scale, we have “Generation Z,” kids born after 1997.
Admittedly, I am biased but it’s probably because I – like so many others – tend to dismiss today’s youth and instead rely on my knee-jerk reaction to “kids today.”
I often want to drive my head into a brick wall, when I read or hear members of Gen Z or their predecessors, Millennials, complain about their elders and about what a horrible world they have inherited.
They (Gen Z and Millennials) actually believe that they are so much more enlightened, tolerant and compassionate than previous generations of Americans who allegedly left behind a world of racism, gender conformity, homophobia and a ruined environment.
They tend to place a greater value on safety versus freedom. They have only known a world that is instantly connected by technology, and they tend to bristle at the word: sacrifice.
Sweet Child of Mine
Are these kids today right or wrong? Are the complaints about them, their music and their culture accurate? Or are these kids today not much different than the kids of the 1970s, the 1950s or even the 1920s?
In the 1950s, many parents were worried about boys in leather jackets with grease in their hair. There was a radical new genre of music exploding on radios. Rock ‘n’ Roll, which was generated by Black musicians, took rhythm and blues to an entirely new level.
Artists such as Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Billie Holiday and Ray Charles ignited the flames of rock music, inspiring so many others, from Elvis Presley to the Rolling Stones. On the Ed Sullivan show, Elvis Presley was shown only from the waist up while performing because his swinging hips were considered “too suggestive.”
But even before then, parents were worried about “lazy, insolent” children who were listening to the “devil’s music,” from artist such as Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman in the 1930s and ‘40s.
Swing music, the adults said, was encouraging sexual promiscuity as boys and girls danced suggestively and “Jitterbug” dancing reigned supreme.
In the 1960s, kids started growing their hair long; many became “anti-society” hippies and embraced a culture of “free love” and increased experimentation with illicit drugs. Today, those kids are getting ready to collect Social Security and buying time-shares in Boca Raton.
You get my point. There is one universal truth about children and their development: they absolutely love to piss-off their parents, crave attention and righteously believe that their generation is the “best.”
It is normal (and actually necessary) for kids to reject traditions; to protest and become aware of the world around them.
A simpler time?
Before you begin to wax nostalgic about how much better life was in the 1950s, the 1960s or the 1970s, consider this:
In the 1950s and 1960s, Black students couldn’t attend the same schools, colleges and universities as white kids. In the 1950s, kids were taught to hide under their desks as fears increased about a possible nuclear attack.
In the 1950s and 1960s, gay people were not allowed to be married or serve in the military. In the 1950s and 1960s, American kids were dying by the thousands in southeast Asia.
In the 1950s and 1960s, women generally earned much less than their male counterparts. When people proclaim that the ‘60s were a “more peaceful” time, I teeter on the edge of having a stroke.
In the 1960s, President Kennedy was assassinated; Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated; Black activist Malcom X was assassinated; Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and the ongoing war in Vietnam escalated.
In the 1950s, we freely dumped toxic waste into rivers and streams. There was no Department of Environmental Protection.
But when – exactly – – did kids become so lazy and misguided?
Well, history is a brutal teacher.
Complaints about “kids today” can be traced to the Fourth Century, BC when Aristotle wrote: “[Children] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. They think they know everything and are quite sure about it.”
Or how about this, first published in 1904 in the Psychology of Adolescence:
“Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, pre-maturities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline…”
Or this from the Portsmouth Evening News in 1936:
“Probably there is no period in history in which young people have given such emphatic utterance to a tendency to reject that which is old and to wish for that which is new.”
In 1938, Leeds Mercury published this excerpt:
“Parents themselves were often the cause of many difficulties. They frequently failed in their obvious duty to teach self-control and discipline to their own children.”
There are many, many more historical examples of complaints regarding today’s young people from every generation since . . . well basically, forever.
“Superficial, sudden, un-sifted, too fast for the truth, must be all telegraphic intelligence. Does it not render the popular mind too fast for the truth? Ten days bring us the mails from Europe. What need is there for the scraps of news in ten minutes? How trivial and paltry is the telegraphic column?”
What would those guys have thought about the internet, Facebook or Tik-Tok?
Damn kids today. Technology is ruining everything!
Jon Stewart – a comedian and talk show host who was once a darling of the far left and progressive Democrats – found himself in some hot water this week when he made his triumphant return to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central network.
Jon Stewart/Photo: Scott Kowalchy, CBS
Stewart previously hosted the late-night “Daily Show” from 1999 to 2015. The show is generally considered satire, but Stewart was well-known for leaning hard left when it came to discussing politics.
Beyond being a comedian, actor, director and producer, Stewart is also a very decent human being who has consistently used his celebrity status to advocate for veterans in need of health care; and for first-responders who are still suffering from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
Reportedly, viewership of the Daily Show has been somewhat sluggish since Stewart left the network nearly 10 years ago to pursue other projects, namely a streaming show on Apple + TV, The Problem with Jon Stewart.
So how did this funny, sharp-witted philanthropist — who never hesitates to rail against Donald Trump and the Republican Party — piss off almost every member of the Democratic Party on his first night back on the Daily Show stage?
Well, basically, someone didn’t give him the memo before the cameras began rolling on Monday. Stewart, a predictable defender of Democrats, failed to toe the party line.
Stewart (gasp) had the temerity to publicly criticize President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the 2024 presidential election.
Wait! What?
Here, hold my beer, and I’ll explain.
Stewart decided to not use his very big stage to blindly support the man who he likely will be voting for in November. Instead, Stewart’s monologue focused on what a crappy choice we all have to make in November, Republicans and Democrats.
According to Newsweek, thousands of progressive Democrats spilled their iced-mocha cappuccinos on their laps when Stewart “equally” mocked Biden and Trump for issues related to their age, questioning whether either one of them was fit to serve as our commander-in-chief.
Progressives generally preach all day long about tolerance and diversity, right up until the point when the don’t like the subject matter. Then?
Well then, they are not so tolerant or diverse.
Reportedly, reaction to Stewart’s monologue raised a chorus of voices all over social media. Thousands of viewers pledged to never watch the Daily Show again. Social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram and Tik-Tok, reveal that viewers went ballistic with their comments about Stewart and their disdain for so-called balanced commentary.
Here’s one of the thousands of comments that can be found on social media, according to Newsweek:
“FASCIST!! We’re seriously going to 2016 both sides this s*** again?! WTF is wrong with you?! JFC!! #TheDailyShow is a fascist-enabling s*** show!!”
Fascist? Seriously? Where did this person go to school? Today, apparently, the only thing you need to do in order to be labeled as a “Fascist” is to tell jokes about presidential candidates.
Are history books not available online?
I guess now Stewart can join with Bill Maher – another successful white comedian in his 60s who relishes poking fun at people on both sides of our nation’s political divide.
Maher – who hosts his own show on HBO – is another card-carrying Democrat who drew the ire of his political friends by refusing to be politically correct on his television show, Real Time with Bill Maher.
Maher is hilarious when he goes after politicians, policy makers and pundits of all stripes on his show.
Apparently, it will still be safe for progressive Democrats to watch the Comedy Channel, Tuesday through Friday.
Stewart will be working just part-time, only hosting the Daily Show on Monday nights. Talk about ‘Must-See-TV” I’ll be watching.
Does that make me a fascist?
[Thanks to loyal reader Jeffrey Tippett for pointing out that there is no such thing as the “Democrat” Party. Such references should properly be listed as the “Democratic” Party . . . you know, the party of Democrats.The error has been corrected, We, here at Lessons In Mediocrity, rely on our readers to keep us on our toes.]
Not too long ago, a very well-known and respected Boston Globe columnist opined that there are some good reasons why a growing number of Americans no longer “trust the media.”
In his Nov. 29, 2022 opinion column, Jeff Jacoby pointed to a recent Gallup report, which revealed that just one out of three Americans claimed to have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the media.
“It has been a long time since most Americans trusted the press to tell them the truth,” Jacoby wrote, adding that “in 1972, when Gallup first began assessing the public’s opinion of the news industry, 68 percent of adults voiced a high degree of confidence in the media’s credibility. In 1976, the year Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, and Jason Robards starred in All the President’s Men, public faith in the media’s integrity set a record: 72 percent.”
“Over the last three decades, that faith [in the media] has largely crumbled,” Jacoby wrote, saying “journalists and news organizations have increasingly abandoned the old ideal of unbiased news coverage, as media outlets have come to care more about getting the narrative right than getting the facts right.”
To support his opinion, Jacoby points to some recent news stories and how those stories have been covered by large and well-known media outlets.
I tend to believe that Jacoby is right, at least on a macro level.
Before we proceed any further, let’s get some things straight. I don’t offer the following commentary as an “expert” of any kind. In fact, I never graduated from college. I do, however, have some “journalism” experience as both a reporter and editor.
(Photo: IMDb)
Today, I am paid to write for an online news organization. For more than 30 years, writing news was how I made my living. It was how I fed my kids and bought my house. To say that I loved my job would be a gross understatement. From a very young age, I have always been a public policy/political junkie. I was lucky enough to have a job that also fed my soul.
What is journalism?
The field of journalism has undergone a seismic shift over the last four decades. It’s not uncommon today to hear an older person say something like “I miss Walter Cronkite. He didn’t have an agenda.”
In all fairness, Cronkite was roundly criticized by many voices for being a bit less than completely objective.
I think our expectations of the media have also changed dramatically over the last four decades. For better or worse, evolving technology – along with a relatively new emphasis on the importance of ratings – has produced a profound impact upon the media landscape.
But what is “the media,” and how do we define the practice of journalism? I think those are some loaded questions, and the answers are both complex and widely varying.
Today, thanks to technology and some societal changes, just about anyone can be a “journalist” or a media outlet. There is no requirement for any kind of training or experience. All you need is a notebook, a camera and an internet connection and presto – – you are a journalist, or as we say these days, a “social influencer.”
Don’t get me wrong. There are many positive aspects of grass-roots journalism, but it’s also becoming increasingly difficult for news consumers to separate the wheat from the chaff when trying to discern what exactly is legitimate news coverage.
Another problem is that more and more consumers are trying to custom-tailor their news feed, aligning themselves with their own politically-flavored news perspective. If a news outlet produces a story that somehow disrupts the reader’s individual world view then it is automatically dismissed as “fake news” and further proof of media bias.
Almost three years ago, I wrote a similar blog post and interviewed two veteran Maine journalists from both sides of the political spectrum, asking them if the media is biased.
Dennis Bailey spent several years as a reporter working for the Maine Times and Portland Press Herald. He readily acknowledges that his personal politics are more in line with Democrats.
“I’ve never been a believer in objective journalism,” Bailey told me. “A good story is a good story, but it does come with some bias.”
Bailey pointed to certain realities about how a news story is produced. “A reporter often decides what story to follow,” he said. “From there, an editor decides the placement of a story and the headline of that story. These are all subjective decisions.”
On the other side of the political aisle, John Day, who spent several decades as a reporter and then as an editor of the Bangor Daily News, agrees with Bailey about media bias.
“I’m a big fan of diversity,” Day said. “But I was always a contrarian. Fake news has always been around. If all news outlets reported every story the same way, then it would be nothing more than a giant circle jerk.”
New media outlets seem to be popping up almost every-day. Cable-television introduced us to the 24-hour news cycle, and the creation of the internet ushered in the age of instant news coverage. The popularity of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook only further obfuscate the definition of “the media.”
And we cannot ignore the financial pressures faced by those who produce the news that we read, watch or listen to.
Several months ago, I watched an interview with Christopher Wallace, a former anchor on Fox News Sunday and is now a CNN anchor. Wallace, who has a reputation as a hard-nosed journalist, was talking about how the media has changed over the last several years.
What struck me about that interview is that Wallace laid plenty of blame at the feet of his father, Mike Wallace, who is generally revered as some kind of demi-god by most professional journalists. During the latter part of his career, the elder Wallace was one of the lead anchors of 60 Minutes, a news magazine show that debuted on CBS.
“Before 60 Minutes, the networks generally considered news programming as some sort of public service,” the younger Wallace explained. “Then 60 Minutes happened, and suddenly the networks began to see news programming as a very valuable commodity.”
While the big media corporations continue to intensify their ratings war, many local and small media outlets are struggling to keep their heads above water as they desperately try to keep pace with the continually changing news landscape.
But how does that negatively impact you? Who really cares if another local newspaper closes shop? I’ll get to that in a moment.
The responsibility of the fourth estate
Nearly 300 years ago, Edmund Burke, a member of British Parliament, reportedly coined the term “Fourth Estate” to describe the press, its obligations as a check in government oversight and its responsibility to frame political issues as well as advocacy for the general public.
From Burke’s perspective, the news media played a very important role, at least as important as the other three estates: the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. Today, especially in the United States, the other three estates of government are considered as the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch.
That’s pretty heady stuff if you stop and think about it. A free and unencumbered press literally has the capacity to bring down even the most powerful of political leaders or organizations. We need the press to be our advocates at the table. We depend on the media to keep government in check.
It’s not just important during something like the Vietnam War (the Pentagon Papers, New York Times) or the Watergate scandal (Washington Post). It also matters in your own community and your day-to-day life.
For example, how exactly is the government spending your tax dollars? Who is paying attention to that new zoning ordinance and how it could impact your home value? What is the city planning to do to your kid’s school? Who is advocating for the less fortunate among us? Who is keeping us aware of the day-to-day threats to our peace and comfort?
Sure, I think it’s great that the city of Biddeford has its own, municipal news organization: The Biddeford Beat. But is that really a good replacement for an independent media source? I mean, really, how do we expect a government agency to provide a comprehensive critique of itself or an overview of its day-to-day activities? In fact, one has to wonder how much tax money is being used to produce local government-controlled news.
There are two main reasons why it is becoming more common to see local government create its own “news” coverage. First, the technology makes it relatively easy to do, especially if it’s just an on-line news source.
But much more troubling is the fact that many local government agencies are simply trying to fill a void left by a rapidly shrinking pool of professional reporters at the local level.
I fondly remember covering Biddeford City Council meetings more than 20 years ago. Back then, the council chambers were – politely speaking – often packed with opinions, rage and contempt. It was mostly civil, but it seemed as if there was always some sort of tension. Certain residents regularly attended every meeting, never hesitating to use their five-minute limit at the podium during the “public comment” period. It was awesome.
Back then, there were at least three reporters at every council meeting: Kelley Bouchard covered Biddeford for the Portland Press Herald. Josh Williamson represented the Journal Tribune, and I was there on behalf of the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier.
Each of us would have likely stabbed the others in the neck in order to get the story first. We scrapped it out on the streets, digging for the facts, looking at all the angles and always fiercely competitive. Frankly, it was humbling to work with professionals like Kelley and Josh.
According to the US Census Bureau, the city of Biddeford has a population of roughly 22,000 residents. I think a city of that size, although small, deserves and warrants a full-time reporter or two. Even more so, when considering that Biddeford is the largest city in York County and is a service center for residents from all over southern Maine.
Today, unfortunately, city council meetings in Biddeford are generally quiet, somewhat uneventful and not very well attended. There are no longer three reporters covering every meeting.
The Journal Tribune ceased operations a few years ago, and the Portland Press Herald closed its local bureau on Main Street. The Courier, a locally-owned publication, was sold to the owner of the Portland Press Herald, which basically uses the weekly newspaper to account for its coverage of the Biddeford-Saco area.
Today, Tammy Bostwick Wells, one of the finest and hardest working reporters I’ve ever met, is expected to cover not only Biddeford but also several other communities throughout York County. Tammy, who previously worked for the Journal Tribune and the St. Croix Courier, does an awesome job, but she is realistically limited in what she can cover. After all, she is only one person and there are only so many hours in a day.
That, unfortunately, is the new reality for local media across the United States. Reporters are basically forced to “attend” government meetings via streaming platforms such as Zoom because of time and staffing constraints. We’re lucky that we have people like Tammy who are willing to take on more and more work without an equal increase in monetary compensation for their efforts.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t extoll the virtues of my publisher and her commitment to the communities of Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach via the operation of Saco Bay News, an online local media source. Liz Gotthelf-Othot is another former Journal Tribune reporter who runs herself ragged every day in her efforts to provide coverage of news that may otherwise go un-noticed.
(Disclaimer: Liz pays me to cover Biddeford news for her online publication)
Yesterday, I posted something on Facebook that lacked appropriate context: “I’d take a dime-bag of outrage over a pound of apathy every day of the week and twice on Sundays.”
We need the media to provide that “outrage” in a meaningful and constructive way. If a news story pisses you off, good! Get involved and help make the change you want to see.
Yup, I do think that big media outlets are somewhat responsible for the erosion of public trust in the media, but I also think we need to challenge ourselves to view news differently than through the lens of our own opinions and our own biases.
I sleep better at night knowing that people like Tammy Bostwick Wells and Liz Gotthelf-Othot are watching my local government. And you may also want to avoid taking the media – especially the local media – for granted.
That’s enough rambling and pontificating for now. Peace.
Never miss another installment of Lessons in Mediocrity! Subscribe now for free!
Earlier this week, Chris Wallace – son of legendary journalist Mike Wallace – appeared on the Stephen Colbert Show and said, among other things, that his father and the legendary television news show 60 Minutes were partly to blame for today’s public distrust of the media.
Wallace, a former FOX Network news anchor who this week began his own show on CNN Plus, said he understands why many Americans have a dim view of the media and how it presents news.
When asked what, if anything, could be done to restore public trust in the media, Wallace told Colbert that before the advent of 60 Minutes, the major networks – CBS, NBC and ABC – considered the broadcast of news to be a “public service.”
Wallace said he believes that “[today’s] desire to chase ratings and make money is what needs to change if the news and the public’s faith in it are to be restored,” according to an MSN story about the interview.
“It used to be in the old days, and I can remember growing up with my father in the ’70s, that news didn’t make money. It was a public service, and the networks viewed it as a public service,” Wallace said. “And then 60 Minutes came along and showed you could make phenomenal amounts of money with the news business.”
60 Minutes first aired in 1968 and was originally hosted by Mike Wallace and Harry Reasoner. The show has often been praised by journalists and other media programs for its integrity and “fearless” pursuit of the news. It has enjoyed steadfast popularity in television ratings for more than five decades.
Today, however, a growing number of Americans say that the media can’t be trusted. Many people claim that today’s media is politically biased. Another often heard complaint is that today’s news is more “editorial than objective news.”
It’s easy to understand why many people feel that the news is no longer objective and fact-based. Today, more than ever before, Americans – and people all over the world – have an increasingly wide range of news options, many of which that have popped up during the past 20 to 30 years on cable television, satellite radio and, of course, the internet.
It’s hard to know who or what to trust, and it’s easier than ever before to blame the media for everything from today’s political climate to the rising cost of gasoline. Millions of people, it seems, are convinced that big media is orchestrating a vicious web of lies intended to keep “regular people in the dark.”
So how can we put the genie back in the bottle? How do we — or can we — restore the concept that news is a public service? Can we really stop the networks from “chasing ratings?”
I seriously doubt it.
If the news delivery business is to truly be a public service than we have to remove the profit factor. Please don’t blather on about NPR (National Public Radio). Even their “listener-supporter” broadcasts include corporate messaging and receive government funding.
Do we really want the government funding the news? Yeah, right. Surely, we can trust the government to fairly and accurately report news and information about the government. I don’t think so.
Getting money out of the news business is problematic on many levels. How do we pay journalists or recruit top journalistic talent? How do we pay for the delivery of the news (the producers, clerks, editors, technicians, camera operators, etc. etc.)?
So, what’s the solution? How do we keep the news business honest?
From my perspective, the more news outlets we have, the better. But more news outlets also requires more viewer/reader/listener discretion. It’s easy to gravitate toward news that aligns with our own pre-disposed political beliefs and philosophies. It’s much harder to seek out information that might make us uncomfortable.
In the end, there are no easy answers. As long as we need a scapegoat to explain things we don’t like or trust, the media will always be a convenient target.
In the words of legendary journalist Walter Cronkite: And, that’s the way it is.
As we continue coping with the Covid-19 pandemic, it is now more important than ever for the media to take extra steps to ensure that their news stories are fact-based, without hype, without speculation and a minimum of bias.
Wait. Did I just say “a minimum of bias?”
Conservative news consumers on the right of America’s political spectrum often talk about bias, screeching that media outlets such as the New York Times and MSNBC television are in the pockets of left-wing billionaires and prominent Democrats. President Trump gleefully eggs them on, attacking the ‘liberal’ media of delivering so-called “fake news.”
Meanwhile, those on the left side of the political spectrum dismiss news outlets such as FOX news and the Washington Times, saying those media outlets are dripping in conservative rhetoric.
Are the pundits right? Do “news” outlets practice media bias?
According to two veteran journalists, the answer is yes, with varying moderation.
Dennis Bailey, who now lives in Washington, DC, is a veteran journalist who spent several years as a reporter working for the Maine Times and Portland Press Herald. He readily acknowledges that his personal politics are more in line with Democrats.
“I’ve never been a believer in objective journalism,” Bailey said. “A good story is a good story but it does come with some bias.”
Bailey points to certain realities about how the news story is produced. “A reporter often decides what story to follow,” he said. “From there, an editor decides the placement of a story and the headline of that story. These are all subjective decisions.”
On the other side of the political aisle, John Day, who spent several decades as a reporter and then as an editor of the Bangor Daily News, agrees with Bailey about media bias.
“I’m a big fan of diversity,” Day said. “But I was always a contrarian. Fake news has always been around. If all news outlets reported every story the same way, then it would be nothing more than a giant circle jerk.”
Although they seem to disagree on just about everything, the two men agree that journalism has gone through some profound changes over the last 30 years, including the 24-hour news cycle and social media.
“People today have a much wider range of choices when it comes to the news,” Bailey said. “There is a notable absence of media literacy today. You can find anything you want to support your own views on the internet.”
Bailey and Day both point to the Watergate scandal and the role that the media played during that crisis. The Washington Post led the way on the story while the New York Times and other media outlets took a more measured approach.
“Walter Cronkite was the godfather of news,” Bailey said. “He was such a trusted guy. We don’t have that anymore.”
According to Day, more than 95 percent of news stories about President Trump are negative while stories about Maine Senator Angus King are nearly always positive. “Angus is not much more than a boot licker for Chuck Schumer,” he said.
The lines between news and opinion are becoming more and more blurred as cable news shows fill air time with pundits such as Rachel Maddow on the left and Sean Hannity on the right.
Today, too many people pick their news source to align with their personal viewpoint, according to both Bailey and Day. “I have more respect for CNN than MSNBC,” Day said. “At least they try to be objective with guests such as Chris Christie.”
So long as media outlets chase ratings and circulation, their ability to maintain objectivity becomes more difficult.
We need to be increasingly vigilant about how we get and choose our news sources.
President Trump is not the first president to have a deep disdain for the White House press corps. More than 50 years ago, former president Richard Nixon lashed out at the media following his loss to Democrat Pat Brown in the California gubernatorial election.
Appearing before more than 100 reporters, Nixon didn’t mince his words about his frustration with the media. “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference,” the candidate said.
More recently, an editorial published in the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2015, James Risen, then a reporter at The New York Times, called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”
As Walter Cronkite consistently said at the end of each of his evening broadcasts: “And that’s the way it is.”
We miss you, Walter.
(Originally published in the Saco Bay News on May 2, 2020)
No, it has nothing to do with Daylight Saving Time, but as the world grapples with the Covid-19 pandemic it becomes even more important for the media to “keep a check” on our government whether federal, state or local.
Sunshine Week was founded in 2005, and its purpose is to provide the media (and the general public) with the tools and resources necessary to ensure that government operations are open and transparent. Sunshine as opposed to darkened backroom deals among government officials.
More than 200 years ago, during a debate in the British Parliament, Edmund Burke coined a phrase to describe the media: “The Fourth Estate.” It was a recognition of the media’s power and responsibilities. We have a system of checks and balances between the branches of our government in this country. The First Estate is the executive branch; the Second Estate is the legislature; and the Third Estate is the judiciary.
Spiderman comics coined the phrase “With great power comes great responsibility.” But the media cannot exercise its power if the government operates in secret or manipulates the flow of information.
Fortunately, the media (and the general public) have an awesome and powerful tool in their arsenal.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966 just as the Viet Nam War was heating up. FOIA provides the media with legal muscle in order to keep the public informed about government affairs.
One of the earliest and most notable uses of the FOIA was its role in the Watergate scandal. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had to use extraordinary tactics, which included FOIA, in order to get to the truth that eventually crumbled Richard Nixon’s presidency.
The media plays an important role in disseminating the news. In fact, it is the media that frames the story, whether it’s a global issue like the Corona virus, a national story such the Democratic primary or a local issue such as the city of Biddeford’s plan to construct a parking garage.
All over the globe, the media has changed drastically over the last 30 years or so. Today, news consumers have more options than ever before. Today, we have a 24-hour news cycle that is voracious, supported by advertising and highly competitive. The days of Walter Cronkite and the neighborhood paperboy are behind us.
Today, consumers have a plethora of choices about where to get their news. You can watch CNN on your smart phone while riding the subway. But how do we know whether your choice of media is trustworthy? We don’t. The cure for this problem is for you to gather your news from a variety of news sources.
If we want the media to be fair, balanced and accurate, we must ensure that reporters (and even back yard pundits) have access to the information that allows them to keep the government in check because our representative government is obligated to be open and transparent.
This year, Sunshine Week runs from March 15 to March 21 (the first day of spring).
Open your windows and pull up your blinds. Let the sun shine into your life so that you can make informed decisions and choices.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY 