Terrence Williams, president and chief operating officer, accepts the award, on behalf of Shay Riley, graphic manager, for the Sentinel’s Fiddlehead publication, from, at right, Michael E. Schroeder, past president of the
New England Newspaper and Press Association board of directors
Weekly Newspaper
The Vermont Standard of Woodstock Phillip Camp, publisher, with Schroeder
Best Ad Designer
Specialty Publication
Kimberly Vasseur Worcester (Mass.) Magazine
Weekly Newspaper
Jane McTeigue Vineyard Gazette Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.
The six new members of New England Newspaper Hall of Fame are, from left, Lincoln McKie Jr., Russel Pergament, Peter Gelzinis, Lisa Tuite and William T. Clew.
Bulletin photo by Leila Habib
New Hall of Famers praise peers, recall careers fondly
By Jess DeWitt Bulletin Staff
The latest members to join the New England Newspaper Hall of Fame nominations emerged from the biggest crop of nominees in the Hall’s history.
Although the competition was stiffer, the new members echoed some of the same themes heard at past Hall of Fame induction ceremonies from members who came from thinner fields of candidates.
Six new members were inducted this year. The inductions took place at a dinner Friday, Feb. 23, in the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel in South Boston. The event was part of the New England Newspaper and Press Association winter convention, and was attended by almost 150 people.
Those inducted this year sounded familiar themes of how much they loved newspaper work, and they praised and thanked their colleagues and others.
Bulletin photo by Jonathan Polen
Inducted were William T. Clew, retired after a lengthy career as a reporter and editor at the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Mass., and still a contributing editor with The Catholic Free Press of Worcester; Timothy Cotter, managing editor of The Day of New London, Conn.; Peter Gelzinis, retired columnist with the Boston Herald; Lincoln McKie Jr., a teacher at the Northeastern University School of Journalism, and former publisher of the Journal Transcript Newspapers, based in Revere, Mass., former executive editor of The Sun of Lowell, Mass., and former managing editor/news of the Telegram & Gazette; Russel Pergament, chief executive officer of TAB Newspapers, based in Newton, Mass., and founder of Boston Metro; and Lisa Tuite, retired head librarian at The Boston Globe.
Clew noted how worthwhile and enjoyable newspaper work is, and showered gratitude and admiration on his peers.
“It’s been a great ride,” Clew said. “I really feel it’s a lot of fun, and I’ve met the greatest people I’ve ever known in the newspaper business. I’ve met some people that we’ve done stories about … but the greatest people are the people who work there, many of them here right now.”
Bulletin photo by Jonathan Polen
Cotter thanked his friends and family, and mentioned that technology has not completely changed journalism.
“We still shine a light on the top corners of government,” Cotter said. “We still tell the stories of those whose voices otherwise would not be heard. The Section 8 tenants living in squalor. The woman with cerebral palsy that won’t be able to get to her job if bus service is cut. The elderly whose life savings are being robbed by home-care companions. Journalism makes a difference, and I’m proud to have chosen it. I’m humbled and excited by this recognition tonight.”
Bulletin photo by Leila Habib
Gelzinis praised his former editor, Mike Bello, who introduced him to the crowd. Gelzinis also spoke about how proud he is to have meshed journalism with his community.
“I knew I was able to chase the dream of telling stories about the city I love. In South Boston, where I grew up and still live. A place that has no shortage of stories,” Gelzinis said.
McKie thanked his family and colleagues for helping him thrive in his career. He also spoke about his message to his students.
Bulletin photo by Jonathan Polen
“I tell them they are in a profession that will never make them rich, maybe not even solvent,” McKie said. “But I tell them, too, that they will never be more challenged and satisfied, and never meet better people … I tell them in all my years in newsrooms, I never once looked at a clock … And most importantly, I tell them that they are entering a noble profession. And noble is the word, my friends. One designed to expose the truth, to expose wrongdoing, to celebrate the uncelebrated, and to otherwise make our society a better place.”
Bulletin photo by Jonathan Polen
Pergament spent much of his speech telling stories about former colleagues, and offered a bit more of a perspective from the business side of running a newspaper.
“In business, the world starts over,” Pergament said. “You can take charge of your organization. You can motivate your crew, if you’re willing to do the work.”
Bulletin photo by Leila Habib
Tuite’s induction marked the first time a librarian had received the honor. She spoke about the librarian’s job of getting material for reporters and praised her colleagues.
“(Librarian) is a generalist job,” Tuite said. “If you’re in a newsroom, and you’re a business reporter, you don’t necessarily care that there’s breaking news in sports. Or if you’re a sports reporter, you don’t necessarily care that there’s breaking news in metro. A librarian has to care about all of the stuff, and also, they have to have some knowledge about all of that stuff.
“That’s where my colleagues have been so great over the years. You had people you could ask a sports question of, or people who followed The Grateful Dead forever. We’re kind of like a public library in that sense. We answer a lot of general questions. I don’t think, necessarily, the newsroom always understands that we’re spread so thin over so many different departments.
“It’s on the coattails of them that I come here,” Tuite said.
Bulletin photo by Leila Habib The six new members of the New England Newspaper Hall of Fame are, from left, Lincoln McKie Jr., Russel Pergament, Peter Gelzinis, Lisa Tuite, William T. Clew and Timothy Cotter.
From left, Michael DeGirolamo, newsroom librarian and history reporter;
Jonathan Shugarts, Waterbury courts and police reporter;
Alec Johnson, assistant managing editor; Anne Karolyi, managing editor, with John Voket,
president of the New England Newspaper and Press Association board of directors.
Key First-place Journalism Awards
General Excellence
Larger Dailies
Republican-American, Waterbury, Conn.
From left, Michael DeGirolamo, newsroom librarian and history reporter; Jonathan Shugarts, Waterbury courts and police reporter; Alec Johnson, assistant managing editor; Anne Karolyi, managing editor, with John Voket, president of the New England Newspaper and Press Association board of directors.
Smaller Daily
Concord (N.H.) Monitor
From left, reporter Caitlin Andrews, photographer Elizabeth Frantz, and reporter Alyssa Dandrea, with Michael E. Schroeder, past president of the New England Newspaper and Press Association board of directors.
Larger Weekly The Martha’s Vineyard Times, Vineyard Haven, Mass.
George Brennan, news editor, with Voket
Smaller Weekly
Mount Desert Islander, Bar Harbor, Maine
Liz Graves, managing editor, with Schroeder
Specialty Publication
Providence (R.I.) Business News
Mark Murphy, editor, with Voket
Weekly Reporter of the Year
Dan MacAlpine *, Ipswich (Mass.) Chronicle
Daily Reporter of the Year
Neil Simpson **, The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, Mass.
Weekly Rookie of the Year
Hadley Barndollar *, The Exeter (N.H.) News-Letter
Daily Rookie of the Year
Aimee Chiavaroli **, The Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass.
Weekly Photojournalist of the Year
David Sokol *, GateHouse Media New England
Daily Photojournalist of the Year
Peter Pereira **, The Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass.
Allie Baker**, digital writer and producer, pictured above. Jessica Garcia, interactive media services director, and Cecily Weisburgh, digital content editor, won the award with Baker.
*Pictured with John Voket **Pictured with Michael E. Schroeder
‘The difference between life and death for someone in philadelphia could be a stranger with narcan.’ — Michael Newall, Columnist, Philadelphia Inquirer
Report or help? When, how to help in an on-scene crisis
By Rebekah Patton Bulletin Correspondent
Crises across the country and across the globe remain too present in today’s news coverage. Whether the story is about school gun violence or other mass-casualty incidents, forest fires, or hurricanes, the crisis reporter has a heightened chance of covering a story in a high-risk and unpredictable setting.
Knowing what to do and how to do it might be unclear when a dangerous situation arises, and when the immediacy of covering the story is challenged by the immediacy of saving a life. The role of an on-scene journalist can often be torn between being a working reporter and a compassionate civilian.
In such situations, there is a question of what involvement by on-scene journalists is most useful, and what help might actually be counterproductive.
Patrick Lee Plaisance of Penn State University, a former journalist; Michael Newall, a columnist with the Philadelphia Inquirer; and Jeremy Rodorigo, an executive and responder at American Medical Response in Waterbury, Conn., shared their thoughts during an emotional and timely discussion on when and how to act safely and professionally in such circumstances.
More than 30 people attended the session Friday, Feb. 23, at the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s winter convention at the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel.
‘If it becomes a crime scene before your eyes, there is an inherent duty to step away from the camera and help out. Who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm if you were to not act? That is when you need to help.’ — Patrick Lee Plaisance, Professor, College of Communications, Penn State University
Plaisance, a professor at the College of Communications at Penn State University, initiated the discussion by discussing how and when journalists should intervene in a time of imminent danger.
He said it is best to intervene when the threat is imminent, and when you can help others avoid that threat.
“If it becomes a crime scene before your eyes, there is an inherent duty to step away from the camera and help out,” Plaisance said. “Who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm if you were to not act? That is when you need to help.”
“The journalist is also a human being,” Plaisance said. “Help out if you can.”
But Plaisance said that sometimes the best form of helping is recording the scene. Sometimes, the best intervention is telling the story.
One of his examples: During one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent demonstrations in the early 1960s, sheriff’s deputies were throwing children to the ground. An on-scene photographer swung his camera onto his back on impulse and then became involved in shielding the children from harm, Plaisance said.
Plaisance said King witnessed the event and said to the photographer: “The world doesn’t know this happened, because you didn’t photograph it. I’m not being cold-blooded about it, but it is so much more important for you to take a picture of us getting beaten up than for you to be another person joining in the fray.”
Plaisance said: “Understand that the photographing and recording may be the most effective way of intervening at all. You need to realize what kind of aid would be most valuable in the situation and also for the future.”
He reminded the audience that the role of the journalist is not to act as a first responder; journalists should not intervene when they might endanger a life, including their own.
Credibility is also important when covering a story, Plaisance said. Adhering to being an impartial observer is a critical component in journalistic credibility, he said.
Newall covers the opioid epidemic in Philadelphia. Newall said between his experience with losing a brother to a heroin overdose and his firsthand experience of witnessing the impact that the opioid epidemic has caused in Philadelphia, he was compelled to become certified in administration of Narcan, the heroin antidote.
“The difference between life and death for someone in Philadelphia could be a stranger with Narcan,” Newall said.
Newall said he has successfully administered Narcan twice in Philadelphia.
His goal as a columnist is to break down the stigma of opioid addiction and overdose.
Rodorigo, a trainer of emergency medical technicians, concluded the session with a tutorial on the Stop the Bleed campaign, which involves bleeding control kits that are planned to be used in stadiums and heavily populated areas.
“There is a need for people to learn how to stop bleeding,” Rodorigo said.
The kits Rodorigo presented included emergency supplies with visual and written directions. The kits are intended to be used by trained staff at the sites, and by laymen who can open a kit and help respond to an emergency. Tourniquets, gloves, shears to cut off clothing, and gauze saturated with a hemostatic “quick-clot” were a few of the supplies.
Rodorigo said the average response time for his ambulance is seven minutes and 50 seconds for a call about severe medical emergency, such as a heart attack, stroke, or mass-casualty incident. Preparing for the worst with the emergency kits could save countless lives, he said.
John Voket, associate editor of The Newtown (Conn.) Bee and the newly elected NENPA president, moderated the session.
He said, “’Keep writing, keep shooting, don’t get involved’ is all old-age thinking.”
The session concluded with a question from an audience member: “What do you say to a victim when you are trying to help them?”
Rodorigo said: “Tell them you are trying to help them, and you are here with them.”
Even if the victim is unconscious, it is always best to talk to the victim in a calm tone, and explain what you are doing and how you are helping them, he said.
‘There have always been fact-resistant people.’ — Jane Elizabeth, Director of accountability journalism, American Press Institute Bulletin photos by Avital Brodski
Fighting the
‘firehose of falsehood’
By Kaitlyn Mangelinkx Bulletin Correspondent
“Fear has a lot to do with what people believe and why they believe it.”
Jane Elizabeth, director of accountability journalism at the American Press Institute, used that quote to begin her session, “Reaching the ‘fact-resistant’: How to engage partisan audiences through trust and transparency,” at the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s recent winter convention.
Elizabeth explained to an audience of about 40 the basics of the fact-resistance issue and suggested strategies to combat it.
“There have always been fact-resistant people,” but the difference now is the partisan divide in interpreting facts, she said. Consumers face a constant “firehose of falsehood” about American politics, which leaves consumers confused as to what the truth is, as well as suspicious of anything they hear, she said.
Audience members shared stories of how they had dealt with fact-resistant readers in the past, from correcting information in letters to the editor to responding vigilantly to Facebook trolls.
Elizabeth directed the audience to a site called “Poll Everywhere,” where she could send questions that audience members could answer on their phones. The site turns answers into a word cloud, with the words that appeared largest in size being the most common answers.
For the first question — “Who/what do you trust?” – the responses of audience members varied. Common answers included ‘mom,’ The New York Times, family, experts, science, and, at this New England event, Tom Brady.
That question shifted the focus of the session toward trust; people trust sources they know. When readers don’t know journalists, they might not trust journalists. And as Elizabeth noted, “if someone doesn’t trust you, they don’t believe you.”
Elizabeth offered “15 quick tips that, hopefully, you can go back and use in your newsroom.”
The tips focused on knowing your readers and giving them a way to know you, along with learning more about people spreading fake information.
Elizabeth offered ways to use the tactics of fakers to spread facts. One popular suggestion was to “fight fake memes with fact memes,” repurposing one of the most effective methods of spreading false information.
Elizabeth used an acronym – SHIP IT– to explain transparency, which she sees as critical to building a relationship with readers and encouraging them to believe facts.
S: Show your work
H: Hold events
I: Identify your reporters
P: Post your policies
I: Improve labeling
T: Translate your terminology
Using those strategies, news outlets can attempt to connect more to audiences, removing some of the mystique of reporting and clarifying news jargon in a way that audiences can understand and appreciate, she said.
Her session was held Saturday, Feb. 24, at the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel in South Boston.
About 40 people attended the session on ‘Reaching the “fact-resistant”: ‘How to engage partisan audiences through trust and transparency.’
Bulletin photos by Alastair Pike ‘Protecting your right to know. I love that phrase.’ — Ed Henninger
Protecting public notices
by making them a public service
By Kaitlyn Mangelinkx Bulletin Correspondent
“Here’s an oxymoron — trusted politician.”
The source of that comment, Ed Henninger, sees public notices as a tool for keeping public officials accountable. But as many newspapers have fallen onto hard economic times, public notices are becoming something else — a way to help save a newspaper.
Governments are required to have public notices published. Newspapers are paid to run the notices, a source of income without which some newspapers might not survive. In recent years, however, some government officials have been trying to find a way to publish public notices by bypassing newspapers and using government websites.
Henninger, director of Henninger Consulting in Rock Hill, S.C., thinks that losing public notices would be disastrous for the newspaper industry. On Saturday, Feb. 24, he led a session explaining the situation at the New England Newspaper and Press Association winter convention in the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel in South Boston.
Henninger shared his tips with an audience of about 10 people in a session titled “Public Notice Redesign — Giving them their due.”
The key to saving public notices is getting people to care, Henninger said.
His proposals for get people to care might be concerning to editors, however. Henninger suggested using bigger fonts, adding headlines, putting public notices on their own page, and adding pictures. All of those suggestions can get expensive. Audience members raised those concerns, but Henninger remained focused.
“Do you want to keep the public notices or not?” he asked.
Spending a little time and money on public notices now can save public notices, and thus newspapers, in the long run, Henninger said.
When discussing the changes, Henninger showed slides of traditional and improved public notices. One common change was the addition of a section header and tagline.
“Protecting your right to know,” Henninger declared, looking over the various taglines he uses. “I love that phrase.”
Although the changes seemed drastic, and audience members raised concerns about paying for extra staff to make the changes, existing newspaper software would make the changes simple, Henninger said.
“You can do it in what, 30 seconds?” Henninger said.
One younger audience member replied, “If that.”
Ultimately, Henninger’s intention is “creating a news-look kind of page.” By keeping public notices in a similar format to the rest of the paper, ideally readers will go through public notices in the same way they read the rest of the paper, he said.
To maximize interest, Henninger suggested “making this as local as possible,” with section headers, including pictures of the local courthouse or other local features. Other local visuals could include annotated maps pinpointing regions being affected by certain public notices.
Henninger said that by keeping the public engaged with public notices, he hopes to create a reaction to any attempt to remove public notices from newspapers. Through small, simple changes, public notices can become a portion of the newspaper that readers will fight to protect. For many local papers, public notices are critical. Getting local readers to enjoy public notices means readers will fight to protect public notices, he said.
“We have to start looking at these as public service,” Henninger said.
Government officials cannot be trusted to publicize the information in public notices, so newspapers have not only a business incentive but a moral obligation to improve their treatment of public notices, Henninger said.
‘The press is to serve the governed, not the governors.’ — Jane Mayer, Writer, The New Yorker
NEFAC award recipients rewarded for doggedly seeking public records, truth
By Rebekah Patton Bulletin Correspondent
Recipients of honors at the New England First Amendment Coalition’s 2018 awards luncheon did not err on the side of caution in their speeches, but instead they championed the sides of truth and justice.
More than 240 guests congratulated the recipients of the three awards, including the Stephen Hamblett First Amendment Award to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker; the Michael Donoghue Freedom of Information Award to Todd Wallack of The Boston Globe; and the Antonia Orfield Citizenship Award to the Hyde Square Task Force, based in Jamaica Plain, Mass.
The luncheon was held Friday, Feb. 23, at the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel in South Boston during the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s winter convention.
The recipients highlighted the importance of persistence and resilience in their careers, and exercised unwavering dedication to the First Amendment.
Emcee Ed Harding, recognized on multiple occasions for his work on-air and on-scene with WCVB’s NewsCenter 5, said: “For everyone in this room conducting the fight, keep fighting.”
Harding said the fight for exposing truth continues.
Bulletin photo by Chris Christo ‘For everyone in this room conducting the fight, keep fighting.’ — Ed Harding, Anchor, WCVB-TV, NewsCenter 5
He shared his struggles with trying to obtain what is supposed to be public information. Among his examples: A team of five investigators attempting to obtain a full after-action report about the Boston Marathon bombing, with complete details of law enforcement involvement. Although the full 440-page report was released to the news investigators by the Massachusetts state police, nearly every page had redactions on it, Harding said.
He then held up a page from the report that was entirely blacked out with redactions, except for a small vertical sliver of readable space. Members of the audience nodded, familiar with the sight.
Two members of the Hyde Square Task Force, Mabel Gondres and Shayne Clinton, accepted the award for the task force. Both are high school seniors, and have been members of the Task Force since ninth grade.
They discussed the uncovering of a 1993 state mandate, requiring TD Garden to hold fundraisers annually for youth recreation facilities, and showing that the state mandate had been ignored for more than 20 years. The audience gave them a standing ovation.
Bulletin photo by Chris Christo ‘People like us really need to step up and fight for our cause, and continue to make noise for justice.‘ — Mabel Gondres, Member, Hyde Square Task Force
“I was nervous,” Gondres said, referring to having dozens of news outlets inquiring about their disclosure. “But I felt empowered that people were going to find out the truth and what was happening with injustice.”
Gondres discussed the group’s persistence, despite several failed attempts in contact TD Garden.
“Throughout all of this, I still don’t understand how TD Garden can violate a law for over 20 years. No one seemed to care,” she said. “What if I didn’t pay our state taxes for 24 years? I definitely would be receiving some sort of punishment.”
TD Garden has agreed to pay $1.65 million toward building a community recreation center in Jamaica Plain. The Hyde Square Task Force had said TD Garden owed $14 million.
Bulletin photo by Chris Christo ‘If we do out research and keep to the facts, we can expose even the most powerful people in the country.’ — Shayne Clinton, Member, Hyde Square Task Force
“People like us really need to step up and fight for our cause, and continue to make noise for justice,” Gondres said.
Clinton said: “If we do our research and keep to the facts, we can expose even the most powerful people in the country.”
Wallack, after receiving his award, discussed his experiences in seeking to have the First Amendment upheld. Wallack has worked for the Boston Globe since 2007, and is now an investigative reporter specializing in data journalism, public records and financial reporting.
“Everybody who has filed a public records request in Massachusetts has a story to tell,” he said.
Massachusetts remains the only state in the country where someone can be arrested for serious crimes such as rape or sexual assault, and the public does not have access to that information because it is kept in a confidential log, Wallack said.
Massachusetts is also the only state where the handling of public-record appeals is split between two different agencies, Wallack said. “Unless both agencies agree, nothing happens.
“So what can we do about this?” Wallack said. “One thing we can do is write about it.”
Bulletin photo by Chris Christo ‘Everybody who has filed a public records request in Massachusetts has a story to tell.‘ — Todd Wallack, Investigative reporter, Boston Globe
And that’s just what he has done. Wallack recounted his trouble with accessing public records, and with the public having similar issues accessing records.
Wallack said one of the best ways to hold agencies accountable is to file a lawsuit.
Wallack said that for the future, “we need to think about ways to change the law.”
As she accepted her award, Mayer said: “The press is to serve the governed, not the governors.”
Mayer has been a writer for the New Yorker since 1995, and is best known for accountability journalism and for exposing the underpinnings of powerful institutions. She is based in Washington, D.C.
Mayer said journalists should consider the consequences of what they write, and should be fair.
“There is a difference (between) fact and opinion; it is a lesson no journalist can learn too early or too often,” she said.
She discussed how amplifications of falsehoods spread virally through social media, and how huge segments of society can be misled in a matter of minutes.
The unfiltered free-for-all is why it is growing more difficult for serious reporters to distinguish themselves, Mayer said. This “instant information distribution technology” can discredit the authenticity of publications, and it remains the responsibility of journalists to protect free speech and truthful speech.
Mayer said that in 2010 two investigators were hired in hopes of undermining her credibility after she wrote an investigative report on the outsize political influence of two billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch. No errors were found in her report, Mayer said. If that had not been the case, her career could have been brought to an end, she said.
Instead, several colleagues publicly defended her work and her integrity, Mayer said.
“When those (journalists) are attacked, I hope all of you will jump into the fray and speak up for each other … This is all of our fight,” Mayer said.
After Harding returned to the podium to conclude the ceremony, he held up a redacted paper and said: “This is not a stop sign. This is a go sign.”
The audience at the New England First Amendment Coalition’s awards luncheon applauds one of the recipients.
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org.
Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
I understand the motivation behind the just-proposed Journalist Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to attack those involved in reporting the news. The legislation comes at a time of particularly vocal attacks on news operations and individual reporters, many of which stem from the highest office in the land.
I admire the goal — preventing or penalizing misguided thugs who would censor through violence. And I salute U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, for introducing it in an era in which support for journalism is at an all-time low.
But some part of me — the free press advocate in me — hopes the proposed act never becomes law. Not because journalists don’t need protection, but because I fear unintended consequences. As the old maxim goes, “No good deed goes unpunished.”
The great power, and the proper position, of a free press has always been that it represents “the people.” The press is — simply and magnificently — not a group apart, but part of that group. It is not made up of “elites” or players united in some grand conspiracy to control the news or steer the nation, as some grandstanding politicians claim, but a disjointed gaggle of vocal, well-informed fellow citizens, who are employed to report on behalf of us all. Those who would damage democracy’s checks and balances by isolating the “watchdogs on government” from fellow citizens would like nothing better than to have journalists themselves give credence to such a separation.
In a Feb. 5 news release, Swalwell makes his good case for the Journalist Protection Act: “President Donald Trump’s campaign and administration have created a toxic atmosphere. It’s not just about labeling reports of his constant falsehoods as #FakeNews — it’s his casting of media personalities and outlets as anti-American targets, and encouraging people to engage in violence.”
Swalwell, while conceding that not all attacks against journalists in the United States can be connected to Trump, said nonetheless that “such antagonistic communications help encourage others to think, regardless of their views, that violence against people engaged in journalism is more acceptable.”
Journalism groups also noted, in the news release, the dangers their members now face.
Broadcasters in the field often work alone or with a single colleague, said Charlie Braico, president of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. “With their expensive and cumbersome equipment, they are easy and tempting prey for anti-media extremists and thieves.”
“Dozens of physical assaults on journalists doing their jobs were documented by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in 2017,” said Rick Blum, director of News Media for Open Government. “Physical violence and intimidation should never get in the way of covering police, protesters, presidents and other public matters.”
The tracker that Blum refers to is a new database, launched and operated by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which logs arrests, harassment and physical attacks on journalists. As of Feb. 7, it showed that since January 2017, 30 reporters in the United States have been attacked while covering protests and two reporters had been assaulted by politicians. (Note: The Newseum is among the journalism groups supporting the database project.)
Globally, the situation is much grimmer: According to Freedom House, an international freedom advocacy group, barely 13 percent of the world’s population lives in nations where the press is considered free. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports two journalists killed thus far in 2018, 262 imprisoned since 2017, and 58 journalists missing around the world.
So to all those critics who already are attacking Swalwell’s bill as unneeded or rooted in partisan politics — sorry, but the threat to journalists is real from those who consider violence an acceptable form of press criticism.
Still, we should be wary of giving journalists a special place in the zone of laws that already protect us all from assault, battery or worse. Granted, the proposed act could be an alternative when local officials refuse to follow up on an attack — or do so ineffectively. But I like the old newsgathering maxim that “journalists have no more rights than anyone else … but also have no fewer rights.”
Better to encourage police and prosecutors to do their jobs zealously when an attack occurs. Better we hold accountable politicians and others who — for political gain or other unscrupulous motives — choose to simply taunt the news media rather than doing the hard work of legitimate, fact-based criticism.
The Journalist Protection Act is prompted by sincere and worthy motives — and there is a sickness in the land today that condones and encourages threats and violence against journalists. But a free press is better protected by laws that protect us all.
During a keynote speech at the Kansas Press Association convention in February, I presented the results of my latest annual survey of newspaper publishers in the United States and Canada for the first time. With roughly 15 percent of publishers in those two countries participating in the survey, it’s a good bet that the results are representative of the industry as a whole.
In a previous column, the first in a series concerning survey findings, we discussed some of the differences between healthy newspapers and newspapers with diminishing health during the past three years. Today, I’m going to take a look at the differences in how daily and weekly newspaper publishers view the benefits of their digital efforts.
After visiting thousands of newspapers during my career, and speaking to thousands more at conferences, there’s not much that catches me off guard about our industry these days. But I was a little surprised by the vast differences between the way daily and weekly newspaper publishers view the benefits of their digital efforts.
In response to Question 10 of the survey, “How do you feel about the following statement: “Our business would do just as well or better without a print version,” both daily and non-daily publishers agreed that they wouldn’t survive without a print version.
Differences arose, though, in response to Question 11, “How do you feel about the following statement: “Our business would do just as well or better without a digital version.”
A whopping 59 percent of daily publishers responded, “That’s ridiculous. We would be in worse shape without a digital/online edition.”
But 68 percent of responding weekly publishers said it either “is” or “might be” true that their paper would do just as well without a digital version. When you add in the number of folks who responded “other,” then wrote that they didn’t have a digital presence, you have well more than 70 percent of responding weekly publishers wondering whether there is any advantage to having a digital edition of their newspapers.
The differences of opinion between publishers of “healthy” newspapers and “unhealthy” newspapers is not as glaring. Fifty-nine percent of responding publishers who rated their paper’s health as “very healthy” or “relatively healthy” indicated that their papers might be better off without a digital version; 54 percent of publishers who rated the health of their papers as “unhealthy” or “near death” felt the same about their digital efforts.
The results are even more striking when publishers were asked about the benefits of social media. Only 22 percent of non-daily (less than four issues per week) newspaper publishers who responded reported seeing any benefit, financial or otherwise, from their social media efforts. Compare that to 60 percent of responding daily newspaper publishers who saw some type of benefit from their social media efforts.
I’m fascinated by the responses to these surveys. As I hear from publishers and others after seeing the results of our past surveys, it’s apparent that folks are often surprised to find their newspapers aren’t so different from others. This is especially true when we look at categories such as newspaper ownership models (a full 50 percent of U.S. and Canadian newspapers are not part of any group, and only 11 percent are part of a large regional or national group) and circulation (average circulation is less than 6,000).
I often hear those at conferences say: “I thought we were different from everyone else.”
There’s some solace, I believe, in realizing that you’re not alone. At the same time, we can gain some benefit from learning what is working at other newspapers similar to our own.
John Foust has conducted training programs for thousands of newspaper advertising professionals. Many ad departments are using his training videos to save time and get quick results from in-house training.
A friend told me about the time his mom took him to the shopping mall to help her pick out a birthday present for his father. He was about six years old at the time, and it was no surprise when he headed straight for the toy store. That gave her a chance to have a little talk with him about the gift selection process: We look for something the other person would like, which is not necessarily what we would like for ourselves. She then guided him to another store, where they picked out a more appropriate gift. All these years later, he still remembers that important lesson.
The adult version of this story happens all the time. I once attended a strategy meeting at a nonprofit agency. The group was discussing ways to express appreciation to donors, and someone suggested framing a list of names and displaying it in a prominent place in the office. The leader of the group said, “That won’t work. I don’t want my name publicized.” Someone pointed out that people could remain anonymous if they wanted, but she stood firm against the idea. It wouldn’t have been a shock if an outsider had made that comment, but she should have known better. If you ask me, it was obvious that the wrong person was leading that meeting.
I’ve heard the same kinds of things in advertising meetings. A retailer refuses to run an ad in the sports section of the paper, because he doesn’t like sports. (He doesn’t understand that his products appeal to the demographic group that follows sports.) A business owner decides against a digital presence, because “digital is only for national news.” (She doesn’t realize that her target audience is relying heavily on digital for local news.) A salesperson hesitates to recommend a higher ad budget, because that advertiser has never spent that much money before. (In reality, the advertiser might have plenty of money to spend on the campaign, but the salesperson can’t think beyond his own perceptions.)
Henry Ford said, “If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.”
Yes, anyone can see things from their own point of view. But it requires special talent to see things from the other person’s perspective.
Advertising requires its practitioners to follow Henry Ford’s advice on many different levels. Salespeople have to see things from their advertisers’ perspectives. Then they have to help those advertisers see things from their target audiences’ viewpoints. Along the way, they have to help their production departments create audience-relevant messages.
It’s human nature to believe that everyone will like this new business proposal … or that headline … or this ad schedule. That’s why it takes discipline to understand what the other person thinks. In the end, you’ll develop better advertising, better marketing partnerships and better internal working relationships.
Terrence Williams, president and chief operating officer, accepts the award, on behalf of Shay Riley, graphic manager, for the Sentinel’s Fiddlehead publication, from, at right, Michael E. Schroeder, past president of the
Phillip Camp, publisher, with Schroeder
The key to saving public notices is getting people to care, Henninger said.
Protect journalists with the same laws that protect us all
Gene Policinski
Inside the First Amendment
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org.
Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
I understand the motivation behind the just-proposed Journalist Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to attack those involved in reporting the news. The legislation comes at a time of particularly vocal attacks on news operations and individual reporters, many of which stem from the highest office in the land.
I admire the goal — preventing or penalizing misguided thugs who would censor through violence. And I salute U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, for introducing it in an era in which support for journalism is at an all-time low.
But some part of me — the free press advocate in me — hopes the proposed act never becomes law. Not because journalists don’t need protection, but because I fear unintended consequences. As the old maxim goes, “No good deed goes unpunished.”
The great power, and the proper position, of a free press has always been that it represents “the people.” The press is — simply and magnificently — not a group apart, but part of that group. It is not made up of “elites” or players united in some grand conspiracy to control the news or steer the nation, as some grandstanding politicians claim, but a disjointed gaggle of vocal, well-informed fellow citizens, who are employed to report on behalf of us all. Those who would damage democracy’s checks and balances by isolating the “watchdogs on government” from fellow citizens would like nothing better than to have journalists themselves give credence to such a separation.
In a Feb. 5 news release, Swalwell makes his good case for the Journalist Protection Act: “President Donald Trump’s campaign and administration have created a toxic atmosphere. It’s not just about labeling reports of his constant falsehoods as #FakeNews — it’s his casting of media personalities and outlets as anti-American targets, and encouraging people to engage in violence.”
Swalwell, while conceding that not all attacks against journalists in the United States can be connected to Trump, said nonetheless that “such antagonistic communications help encourage others to think, regardless of their views, that violence against people engaged in journalism is more acceptable.”
Journalism groups also noted, in the news release, the dangers their members now face.
Broadcasters in the field often work alone or with a single colleague, said Charlie Braico, president of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. “With their expensive and cumbersome equipment, they are easy and tempting prey for anti-media extremists and thieves.”
“Dozens of physical assaults on journalists doing their jobs were documented by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in 2017,” said Rick Blum, director of News Media for Open Government. “Physical violence and intimidation should never get in the way of covering police, protesters, presidents and other public matters.”
The tracker that Blum refers to is a new database, launched and operated by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which logs arrests, harassment and physical attacks on journalists. As of Feb. 7, it showed that since January 2017, 30 reporters in the United States have been attacked while covering protests and two reporters had been assaulted by politicians. (Note: The Newseum is among the journalism groups supporting the database project.)
Globally, the situation is much grimmer: According to Freedom House, an international freedom advocacy group, barely 13 percent of the world’s population lives in nations where the press is considered free. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports two journalists killed thus far in 2018, 262 imprisoned since 2017, and 58 journalists missing around the world.
So to all those critics who already are attacking Swalwell’s bill as unneeded or rooted in partisan politics — sorry, but the threat to journalists is real from those who consider violence an acceptable form of press criticism.
Still, we should be wary of giving journalists a special place in the zone of laws that already protect us all from assault, battery or worse. Granted, the proposed act could be an alternative when local officials refuse to follow up on an attack — or do so ineffectively. But I like the old newsgathering maxim that “journalists have no more rights than anyone else … but also have no fewer rights.”
Better to encourage police and prosecutors to do their jobs zealously when an attack occurs. Better we hold accountable politicians and others who — for political gain or other unscrupulous motives — choose to simply taunt the news media rather than doing the hard work of legitimate, fact-based criticism.
The Journalist Protection Act is prompted by sincere and worthy motives — and there is a sickness in the land today that condones and encourages threats and violence against journalists. But a free press is better protected by laws that protect us all.