
‘About 55 people attended the panel discussion on ‘Enhancing local government coverage.’
Focus on people, sources
two keys to enlivening
local government coverage
By Nadine El-Bawab
Bulletin Correspondent
Even though reader interest in local government coverage has waned, it is still important for readers and an important obligation of journalists, according to panelists at the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s recent winter convention. The panelists advised focusing on the people element in politics and on developing sources as just two ways to encourage increased reader interest.
Liz Graves, managing editor at the Mount Desert Islander of Bar Harbor, Maine; Frank Phillips, statehouse bureau chief of The Boston Globe; and Link McKie, a veteran journalist and journalism teacher, were the panelists discussing “Enlivening local government coverage.”

The panelists offered advice designed to improve local government coverage.
Graves noted that “when you are the only other person in the room, you get a sense of the alliances” between politicians.
She said “there is no telling when a boring topic will be essential for background information.” Graves suggested “getting to the meetings early” as a good way to talk to politicians because “they won’t be quite as focused on the (meeting) agenda.”
McKie said reporters should be at local government meetings because “you represent those people that aren’t at those meetings because they are at home watching the Kardashians.”

— Frank Phillips,
Statehouse bureau chief,
Boston Globe
Bulletin photo by Eliezer Meraz
Phillips talked about how technology has made journalism different now than it was when he began his career as a reporter.
“I come from a completely different world. I am a dinosaur. I was introduced into the newsroom with typewriters,” he said.
But even then, politics was what pulled him to journalism.
“I was reading every political journal I could get my hands on,” he said.
His fascination with politics kept Phillips interested in covering it, but he thinks that “if you are going to do this, you have to like politics and like politicians. You have be able to sit there and listen to a lot of dreary government news.”
He described working sources as “kind of like (being) an anthropologist; you are trying to get informants to tell you things.”
Phillips said the 10 years he spent early in his career as a reporter in Lowell were the best years of his journalism career and ultimately his “experience covering local politics makes covering the statehouse so much easier.”
Phillips recalled coverage of his that “was able to get legislation passed to help protect pregnant women in workplaces,” which he said made him “a big hero in some circles.”
He said reporters have to be mindful of the depth of their relationships with sources. Phillips said that when he became a close friend with one of his sources, he told his editor that he wouldn’t be able to cover that source anymore.
His advice on getting sources to open up was to find out what they are interested in and to talk to them about those interests. Phillips said that reporters should remember that when a source lies to them, that’s good for them; they just got a story.
McKie said that he was upfront with sources about being fair with them. McKie said he would tell sources, “‘If you dip your hand in the cookie jar, I will come after you,’ (and) when the time did come and I had to ask the hard questions,” the sources respected that he would write a fair story about them.
McKie thinks that at the end of the day, readers want to know about politicians’ character and “what they are like as people.”
A handout (available here) containing 11 tips about covering local government was distributed to members of the audience at the end of the panel discussion.
About 55 people attended the discussion, held Friday, Feb. 23, in the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel in South Boston.




































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.