Julia Wells has devoted her entire professional career to covering her Island community. After moving to Martha’s Vineyard fresh out of Wells College, she joined the New Bedford Standard Times’ two-person bureau in 1973, then worked for the Cape Cod Times when that newspaper eclipsed the Standard Times as the Vineyard’s preferred mainland paper. In 1984, she joined the Vineyard Gazette, where she served as senior reporter for many years before being named editor in 2004. Over more than four decades, Julia has chronicled the Vineyard’s evolution from a quiet backwater where artists and writers mixed easily with farmers and fishermen to an elite resort and vacation getaway for Presidents Clinton and Obama. A fearless reporter, graceful writer and skillful editor, Julia is also a demanding leader who holds herself as much as her staff to the highest standards. A guardian of the public’s right to know and a mentor to many young journalists, Julia Wells is a shining example of a consummate news professional.
Julia Wells
John Dennis Harrigan
John Dennis Harrigan has been an important part of New Hampshire journalism and newspapering, both daily and weekly, for more than a half century and counting. He is the quintessential newsman. He has done it all in various media, often appearing on public television and radio, but most of his world has revolved around newspapers. He is probably best known for working full time for several years at the New Hampshire Sunday News, and he kept writing his column, “Woods, Water & Wildlife,” even long after he left the paper’s employ, continuing the column for a 37-year run, one of the longest-running columns in the state. As publisher of the Coos County Democrat, he founded the weekly direct-mail tabloid, the Northern Beacon. He also purchased and ran a four-unit Goss press producing his newspaper and the newspaper long published by his father, the late Judge Fred Harrigan. His informed, respectful, and often humorous columns have introduced and educated generations of readers to New Hampshire’s outdoor vistas and wildlife.
January Obituaries 2022
CONNECTICUT
Allan H. Berman
Orlando F. Busino
William F. Jankovsky Jr.
Mike Jensen
Eleanor Kelman
Cindy Kopitar
Thomas A. Markowski
Walter James St. Onge Jr.
MASSACHUSETTS
William F. Biswanger
Conrado R. Bondoc
Frances B. Book
Garry P. Brown
Lisa M. Buckley
Maria Catania
George Harden
Robin Herman
Elizabeth Jane Lovett
Raymond A. Magner
Edward Burgess Powell
Douglas H. Reed
Henry Shahnamian
Robert Hatcher Weiss
MAINE
None Reported
NEW HAMPSHIRE
William Gnade
Charles Joseph McCarthy
Richard Wakefield
RHODE ISLAND
None Reported
VERMONT
None Reported
Apply For Widening the Pipeline 2022 Fellowship By Feb. 6
Many newsrooms have tackled urgent social issues with majority white staff—some more successfully than others. The National Press Foundation intends to do its part to address this problem through a “Widening the Pipeline” Fellowship designed to help confront the common lament that “it’s hard to find qualified journalists of color.”
This is an all-expenses-paid fellowship, from March 2022 to February 2023. Apply by Feb. 6, 2022.
Beginning in March 2022, the once-monthly training sessions will include two in-person gatherings in Washington, D.C. (unless COVID-19 guidelines mandate that all sessions be virtual). Participants must be fully vaccinated to attend the in-person training. NPF will pay for fellows’ airfare, hotel, and most meals for the two in-person training’s. The estimated time commitment for virtual training, including prep and homework, is five hours per month.
The 2022 program will build on NPF’s Paul Miller Washington Reporting and Accountability fellowships, existing partnerships, influential alumni and volunteers to support the growth of these public service-minded reporters. The application is here.
NPF is committed to leveraging its resources and decades of training experience to help grow the pipeline of diverse journalists who will rise to positions of influence in America’s newsrooms.
Specifically, NPF will:
- Recruit up to 25 young journalists for a 12-month fellowship in the leadership, in-depth reporting, data, and multimedia skills they need to hold governments and corporations accountable and to advance in their newsrooms.
- Provide each fellow with individual coaching and mentoring.
- Bring fellows to Washington for training, mentoring, and networking sessions with editors.
- Survey fellows on promotion, retention, and job satisfaction.
Fist Five Perspective: What if the nation’s founders had been able to tweet?
The nation’s founders didn’t have access to today’s social media – but what if they had?
Of course, they took good advantage of the media that they did have, from letters to printed newspapers and journals. They spoke loudly to their fellow citizens, using crowds on the village green instead of speaking through the “village screen” now available worldwide.
Not everything was different. They faced what we might call “colonial terms of service,” rules like those imposed today by social media platforms that govern what can be said and how we can say it. For example, you could not say anything bad about the king, whether it was true or false.
One big difference: Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and others faced government regulations and sanctions for what they said or wrote through any medium because the First Amendment was not ratified until 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
Today we agree to terms of service rules to use social media platforms, an agreement outside the First Amendment’s free speech protection. Social media companies are private entities and have their own rights under the First Amendment, which prevents – for now, at least – government control or censorship over content on their sites.
There’s no imagination needed in some cases to take the work of the Founders right into today’s social media structure. Patrick Henry’s 1775 declaration “Give me liberty or give me death” works as effectively today as a tweet as it did nearly 250 years ago in rousing Virginians to send troops to support the American revolution.
Consider the impact in any medium of the Declaration of Independence’s statement that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Of course, in today’s post, that same phrase might look like this: “👨 and 👩are =, endowed with the right to 🧬,🗽and the pursuit of 😊.”
There’s great debate today across the political spectrum on whether the government should step in to regulate social media. Some would block platforms from banning anyone or provide special protections for political candidates or elected officeholders. Others would mandate increased efforts to combat misinformation or make social media companies financially liable for any harm caused by what others post.
If such rules and regulations were in effect for the Founders, would Twitter have blocked – perhaps only temporarily – two future presidents for the bitter exchanges between the campaigns of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson during the 1796 presidential election?
One report has it that Adams was labeled “a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant,” while others called him “a syphilitic, royalist bastard.” Jefferson was called “a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward,” with some critics describing him as a “half-breed.” One account says that “even Martha Washington succumbed … telling a clergyman that Jefferson was ‘one of the most detestable of mankind.”
While Twitter’s terms of service do provide wide scope for personal comments, Adams or Jefferson today might have filed a complaint about “long-term harassment,” something the social media giant says might trigger a ban on future posts.
They also could sue for defamation, but the courts generally consider even the most spiteful or vulgar opinion — particularly when it’s political speech — to be protected by the First Amendment.
TAKING “ONLINE” THREATS OFFLINE
A less-judicious way — and illegal in most states, even then — of settling such “online” disputes would be how Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton settled their personal attacks: pistols at dawn. But let’s remember how badly that option turned out: Hamilton was mortally wounded in the duel and Burr’s reputation was damaged beyond repair.
And what of Jefferson’s words in a letter endorsing the American revolution: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”? As a tweet today, perhaps around the Jan. 6 insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol, would that call to action run afoul of Silicon Valley rules – and perhaps lead to an FBI knock on a Monticello door? Such a phrase, depending on the context, could be judged a “true threat” and not protected speech.
The First Amendment provides us with great protection from government interference for what we say and write, particularly on political issues or matters of public interest. As we deal with the societal impact of social media — still a relatively new way of speaking — we should remember that the nation’s founders created those protections to allow for what the U.S. Supreme Court has called “robust and vigorous” debate. In 2002, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”
We ought to think about those words – and why the Founders and the nation ratified the First Amendment’s five freedoms during a period of great division and debate not unlike today – in considering how and if to further regulate social media and other means of communication.
As Benjamin Franklin said (and would no doubt have posted): “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”