Accountability 102 (Part II): Who's Pressing the Press?

A free press and democracy go hand-in-hand. That’s why the framers of the U.S. Constitution included freedom of the press at the very top of our Bill of Rights. It’s no different at the local level. In Geneva, the Finger Lakes Times (FLT) plays a vital role in everyday political life. Most of what most people know about City government comes from “the paper.” For that reason, accountability matters. The FLT has an awesome responsibility to get things right, for the sake of good government.

Unfortunately, limitations in space, staff, and ideology prevent the FLT from giving its readers complete and objective coverage of what goes on in the City. FLT headlines (and photo captions, as pointed out in a recent letter to the editor) are not only often sensational, but downright misleading in so far as they do not accurately reflect the content of the story or picture they accompany. Getting the story ‘right’ means that the content must be accurate and complete. In our opinion, the FLT seldom gets the story right, and even their editorial slant is sometimes disconnected from the facts as presented in their own paper. The need for a fact-based point of view on local government, and a fact-based point of view on the local media’s failure to present a fact-based point of view, is the main reason for launching this blog.

Granted, managing editor Anne Schuhle has a tough job. By her own admission, she is frequently overwhelmed by a never ending series of decisions and challenges that come with running a small-town, monopolistic newspaper. That’s the basis of her column in the Sunday paper, From Where I Sit, which features anecdotes about keeping readers happy, balancing work and family, keeping up with changing technology, and the like. Between those realities and the advertising pressures in a small market (as discussed in our most recent interview with Ted Baker), the world of the FLT editorial board is a highly pragmatic one.

At www.nostringsgeneva.com we’ve had our share of run-ins with the paper. They will occasionally run a story on the blog, usually quoting someone who says the blog contains false information. Yet never has anyone at the paper or anyone quoted given any evidence to substantiate such claims. No one-- not a reporter, not an editor-- not even anyone quoted, ever brought forward a valid example of a false statement or something presented as fact in the blog that was not actually true. Shouldn’t follow-up questions and independent fact-checking be the rule and not the exception? Instead, reporters are allowed to repeat, uncritically, what critics have said about the blog, leaving the impression that what had been said was true.

Looking at the local paper in a broader perspective, consider this recent piece in USA Today: ( click here for article). It describes the role of the media (newspapers, in particular) as the “fourth branch of government.” Newspapers must first get the facts straight and then provide a larger context for their readers: “Accuracy, fairness and timeliness are the most important aspects of sound, credible journalism. Journalists are fact finders. They need to get the facts that make a story relevant and interesting to readers. Having said that, a story must also be compelling. It must let readers know why this event is important to them now.”

With regard to the gas station debate, we believe the Finger Lakes Times failed on all three counts. Every substantive article on the topic appeared after a vote was already taken. This leaves residents reacting to decisions, rather than really providing them the tools to be full participants in the process. As shown in Part I, the articles have not been accurate and in the past we believe that was due to a fundamental unfairness in the coverage. After all, the publisher and member of the editorial board was, himself, the biggest proponent of demolition (and due to the closed-door discussions about the topic, very few members of the public would have known that at the time). So, while the FLT requires people who write letters to the editor to disclose any affiliations that might bear on the opinion expressed, the same standard did not hold in their own work.

In a previous post, we stated that a ‘he said/she said’ approach to reporting is not in the public interest. That’s because there’s a difference between being a reporter and being a journalist. Anyone can report what they heard. For instance, take kids on the playground. Johnny tells Jill that school is cancelled on Friday. Jill doesn’t remember hearing that, but she tells Kim. Jill has reported what Johnny said. But if Jill were a journalist, she might have asked the teacher (an presumed authority) if what Johnny said was true. Then, she could tell Kim “Johnny said there’s no school on Friday, but I checked with Mrs. Smith and it's not true,” that’s journalism!

But this is not playground talk, it’s public policy and more journalism is needed. It is not disrespectful, distrusting, or in any way wrong to dig a little deeper and fact-check. It’s the old adage, “trust, but verify.” In the case of Tuesday night’s meeting, we believe an honest mistake was made, but the pattern of reporting, and lack of journalism on this issue in general is simply not acceptable.

Stay tuned for our fact-based point of view on what happened at the meetings!