Pour Some Sugar on Me

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!

Achtung, Baby

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.

(Photo: IMDb)

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!

Lie to me

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.