Category: Reporting

Facepage

Just so you know, the official Berlin Reporter Facebook page is now up, and I’ve been handed the reins. Because it’s a weird week with the holiday, there won’t be any council in this Tuesday’s paper. (See, it is a weird week—normally the paper comes out on Wednesday.) So I’ll be giving a brief summary and wrap up on the Facebook page.

That digital revolution in media is still supported by the wobbling knees of the print edition. Berlin is holding its own for now, but hopefully someone will come up with the next model before the knees buckle. For now, however, the BR facepage will have to do.

J–Time

I went to a presentation by the New Hampshire Press Association on Thursday where presenters talked to high school students about what it means to be a reporter. There were representatives from a number of northern New Hampshire papers, including both Berlin papers, and people from the southern part of the state.
The reporters from the southern part of the state talked about a newsroom with three full-time photographers, and assignment editors, copy editors, firewalls between the advertising side of the industry and tens of thousands of subscribers.
Berlin isn’t like that. Northern New Hampshire isn’t like that. The owner of the News and Sentinel spoke; she is both the editor and the publisher of that paper. At the Reporter I am the only full-time person—the sports reporter is part-time and the editor and other reporters are shared with the Democrat. At the daily the managing editor is a part-time position.
Whatever the role of journalism in a society, its capacity is only so great as its infrastructure. At every city meeting I wonder what would happen if there was no press there. Most members of the public don’t attend council meetings, much less the sub-committees and various boards. I certainly can’t cover all of them, but between the two papers in Berlin someone is usually at every meeting.
What happens if that falls apart? Every paper seems to be struggling. Even the Conway version of the daily is down from six days a week to five. The public is protected by a broken business model, and there is nothing on the horizon to fix or replace it.
If you think most public officials are crooks, this may be a problem for you. If, however, you’re generally a trusting person then this isn’t a big deal. But with scandals being broken daily (or even monthly or yearly on a local basis) it might be disastrous to do without.
I have to admit, the solution isn’t easy. It is like engaging residents of Berlin to civic participation. My job would be less important if every Monday the aisles were full in city hall. Instead of my translation people would have heard it for themselves.
But at the same time those people would need a fact-checker. The public system currently in place was meant to be run with a vigorous press, but in Berlin now there are already strains on that system. It seems absurd that some day that press may dissolve completely, but without a business model what have you got?
I was talking to a friend at the program on Thursday who said he’d like to start a North Country non-profit dedicated to reporting on the region’s issues. I wonder how that would work, be received, or survive. I wonder if people see enough value in journalism to give to it. I cherish NHPR News, which is a big reason why I give to that organization, but their commitment to reporting is limited in scope. Would another venue have a longer reach?
There are a lot of issues in Berlin right now, many of them quite important. But there is also a distinct lack of resources. Three reporters for a city, working for different publications, is a small crew for a place with as much going on as Berlin. I also wonder if most citizens would call themselves engaged, or if they are simply letting Berlin run itself.
It’s one more strain on an already strained city. This one, however, I don’t see the path out from.

Good Press

I was driving around today and heard the newscast on NHPR mention the ATV trail opening tomorrow. In fact, I heard them mention it two different times. Residents of Berlin notice when statewide media report the fires that happen all too often in town. It’s worth pointing out when they are covering the good things as well. While it is usually WMUR people mention when they talk about this phenomenon, they aren’t the only media outlet in the state. Berlin needs to fight the image battle in whatever way they can.

Weather looks good for tomorrow. I’ll be up to cover the opening ceremonies. Hopefully some other media outlets will as well.

Update: I just took a look online, it looks like the story made it out on the AP wire. That’s a good sign people will show up. Heck with statewide media, that’s nationwide.

And I’ve noticed the war has broken out on here about CPD, PSNH and Laidlaw. Wow. Impressive. I’m still waiting to get the official transcript to get a clearer picture of what happened on Tuesday, but I’ve had a few good conversations about the issue. I don’t really worry, however about what people think any of it means. In the end the PUC will likely decide exactly what it means.
I received some vitriolic responses to my posting the report I got. As I’ve said before LPJ isn’t the news outlet I work for. I don’t print rumors in the paper. (I did, however, put Rumorz in the paper.) On LPJ I post whatever I like, including things I haven’t researched. In any such post I’ll point that out, but if you go through and read my posts and think its all news it’s you who has experienced a failure in judgment. In fact I’ve never claimed this site to be a replacement for the paper; it’s something I do for fun people interested in Berlin frequent to supplement their experience with the city. If you don’t like it feel free to direct your browser elsewhere. If you enjoy the discussion, feel free to contribute.
The debate about this one issue is so funny to me. The same day I posted the PUC comments I posted about a building collapsing on Mason Street. I thought it might have been part of the housing initiative effort. I tweeted congratulations to Andre Caron for taking down another one. I was wrong. The building collapsed due to a clogged roof drain, and it was torn down unexpectedly on the fire chiefs orders. I updated the information as I learned it, and no one complained I was shirking my journalistic duties.
Then I post a report I got about the hearings, clearly including the fact that the report is unsubstantiated in the post. Almost immediately get a comment from Laidlaw CEO Michael Bartoszek commenting about my “bad journalism.”
Bad journalism? Really? Which one of my stories in the Reporter was biased? I once was accused of bias because of the questions I asked someone I was interviewing. Really? Bias? Which one of my stories in the Reporter was biased? I don’t think people making these accusations understand what they are talking about when it comes to bias and bad journalism—I’d have to put it in the paper for those terms to apply.

I imagine Mr. Bartoszek is trying to protect his company’s reputation among investors, which commonly check out LPJ. I fully encourage him to tell his side of the story, either on here or anywhere else. And maybe if everyone understands the roll of this site it will relieve me of having to address accusations of bias or bad journalism. If you are coming to LPJ for the news you’re in the wrong spot—check out the Berlin Reporter if that’s what you’re looking for. If you are interested in hearing one more perspective on a dynamic city in the midst of change, that’s what this site is about. I have never billed it as a news site, or as a replacement for either the Reporter or the daily paper. If you want to add to the conversation, I’d love to hear your view. If you want to bitch about my trust fund (Huge. Really.) grow up and learn to read a newspaper.

By the way, I do have an opinion about events in Berlin. It would be impossible to spend as much time there as I do and not. I am not convinced biomass in the center of the city would kill it’s viability as a recreation destination. In fact, I think Berlin could cash in on green energy to improve its image, whether that is on the fringe of the city or in the center.
I don’t know if there is enough wood to support the two plants, but I don’t know there isn’t. Many experts aren’t sure, so I don’t write off the project because of that.
I think CPD does a good job of holding the city’s hand through a process that is often confusing and complex. Bill Gabler comes to Berlin almost daily and is happy to explain what CPD is doing every step of the way. Laidlaw could learn a lot from CPD’s approach. In northern New Hampshire having a face attached to a company goes a long way. Lou Bravakis seems like a great guy, and if he were in the community to the same extent as Mr. Gabler it would alleviate a lot of residents’ concerns.
Laidlaw could remove many of the hurdles in front of them if it wished. They could remove them because they erected them.
I am not, like many people who post comments here, dead set against the project. I think if Laidlaw were to approach Berlin with a bit more transparency, with a better recognition that this is a serious issue for a small city used to getting screwed by industrial interests, they could bring many opponents to their side.
It’s like Laidlaw doesn’t recognize Berlin has been scarred in the past. The city is like an abused child, both angry and scared by people approaching it and likely to lash out. It takes deliberate, cautious movements to move forward in Berlin and not raise the ire of residents. CPD has done that well. Laidlaw could follow suit.
They could easily fix their PR problem with a little heavy hand-holding, instead of another press release. Explain what happened in Ellicottville. Show up to city council meetings. Agree to provide a small percentage each year for community giving (it will likely reduce your taxes anyway). Talk about wood and workers and location like they are something other than statistics. In Berlin that mill site is precious. Some people hate it, others love it, but for everyone it is central to their identity. The people of Berlin, as Councilor Ryan Landry said, are more comfortable when that stack is puffing smoke. Don’t try to elbow your way in, Laidlaw; show people what you’re doing so they have confidence in you.
I don’t think Laidlaw recognizes how closely their project treads to the soul of the city. If they did maybe from the start they would have taken a different approach. Of course they want to make money, but I imagine they also want to be part of the community they are located in. They haven’t done a good job integrating thus far, but I believe that can change. All it would take is a little effort.

Berlin in the News

And no, it has nothing to do with fires. Or the election, Laidlaw, CPD or anything else particularly controversial.

Here’s the ATV story I did for NHPR. I put it to some photos I had, though only one of them is actually from reporting the story. Blogger doesn’t just let me upload MP3s to the site, so I had to make it a movie. Enjoy!

Update: Here’s a link to the story on NHPR. The transcript mixes up east and west, but I caught it while recording it and got it right for the story.

Update: Here’s the video organizers shot of taking the trail through town. It’s about four and a half miles, and it takes about 15 minutes. It will open Saturday.

Where is everybody?

I went to the public information meeting about ATVs last night. Where there were no more than 20 people, and most of them were AVATV club members who already are familiar with the rules. It reminded me about the fire information meeting earlier this year, where again almost no one showed up. At city council often it’s just the daily paper’s reporter and me, and everyone else is at home.
Was it always this way, or did more people come out to these things at one time? I looked at the turnout statistics for municipal elections, and in 2005 it was about 15 percent. That isn’t a lot of involvement in community government.
Some people are obviously frustrated by that level of investment, though I wonder if that is significantly lower than other cities around the state.
City government allows people to vote in representatives, essentially so they don’t have to show up to meetings. Granted that might work if everyone read the newspaper or if the meetings were televised, but currently there are lots of people that are uninformed. I’m not sure what anyone can do about that.

I’ve covered the burned out buildings on Main Street pretty extensively, with several in depth stories. I saw the Vote Jobs ad in the daily that caused such a stir, and I’m not sure exactly what to get out of it. The process is one dictated by state law, and there isn’t anything any councilor could have done different about it. But if people aren’t informed and didn’t read my other articles about RSA 155B than its unlikely they’ll read the next one.
There will be lots of unanswered questions in this election. Councilor Landry pointed out a great question about Mr. Grenier’s stance on Clean Power. Mr. Grenier pointed out a great question on municipal finance, whether the budget should be balanced with a bond. Both of these issues came up to me Monday night, when the paper is essentially done and headed to the printer for Wednesday, and the next paper comes out the day after the election. Would I like to see these questions answered? Yes. Will I be able to do it before the election? No.

I’d like to say the Reporter has the tools to filter through all the election rhetoric to provide a clear view to residents, but it doesn’t. Four editions of my paper come out after the closing period before the election, and with the closing period being a Monday night that essentially rules out any good reporting for that Wednesday’s paper.
So I’ve got three papers to paint a clear picture, while not ignoring other news, like ATV trails and new businesses opening and PUC hearings. I do what I can, but it won’t ever be complete.

Couple that with low newspaper readership and it seems likely the paper has little influence in the discussion. I spend my days going around Berlin and talking to people, and what I find is many don’t understand the issues. People are mad about the buildings on Main Street, and they blame the council for taking them using immanent domain laws. Not possible, but they’re mad anyway. They blame the council for Laidlaw not moving into town. According to Councilor Mark Evans, who is not opposed to the project, the council hasn’t slowed Laidlaw down at all. But the council receives the criticism.
The same will be true of any future council, whether the incumbents stay in office or the challengers win. The council will get blamed for the city’s flaws, regardless of their ability to fix them. In many ways its remarkable people are ever reelected, considering how easy a target the council is.

If more people showed up I think they would have a different view. The council, the police department, the fire department, the city departments all work diligently to preserve, protect and improve the city. It’s not hard to realize that when you’re there every day. There are people who work primarily for their own interests in the community, but mostly its selfless sacrifice. If people showed up they’d see it. What I put in a paper only a small minority of the city reads doesn’t matter; how involved in the community people are does.

I get frustrated by this. I started this blog, and I’ve worked hard for the Reporter, because I want to see Berlin flourish. But these things don’t decline overnight, and it won’t return quickly either. There is hope for Berlin. The frustrating has been fading into the past, and it will continue to do so. The signs of new blood that I’ve been trying to point out in the Reporter haven’t disappeared just because it’s election season—they have increased. The ATV trail will be open in another week, and there are several new stores opening on Main Street. The pizza place that was closed for so long is opening again, and the southern burned out building is scheduled to be cleaned up in the next few weeks. In all, it’s a progressive, creative, revitalizing time for Berlin.

The fact is, no candidate is going to turn around Berlin’s job market in two years. That’s a hard truth campaign signs can’t fix. Because of that the next election is likely to be as fraught as this one.

I have had hold back flashes of despair for Berlin when the world seems aligned against it. I’m no more immune than anyone else to those feelings. It isn’t my city, but in covering it I’ve come to care about its future and its people. It deserves more than to be the butt of statewide jokes.
And I see dedicated people working to improve it, quite skillfully, without the support of residents. Many have lost the drive to pay attention to what goes on at city hall, but that can’t affect the people working there. The city needs those people, with passion and ideas and new ways at looking at things, to move projects forward and helping the city evolve. A few empty seats, I pray, won’t be enough to dissuade people who care.

Update: There was a good turnout tonight to the debate between candidates Mr. Grenier and Mr. Bertrand. It was a worthwhile exercise, and it did more to inform the public than a dozen newspaper articles. It speaks to the value of showing up. A fair portion of the city did tonight, and I hope many more do so again on Tuesday.

NHPR News

I got my script approved for my Berlin ATV story. Going to record it tomorrow and send it to them. It should play sometime near the end of the week. Working to fill the rest of the state in on what’s going down up in Berlin.

So donate to NHPR—maybe a small part of that donation will come back to me.

Update: Just finished mixing the final audio and uploading to NHPR’s server. I’ll try to keep people posted as to when it airs, but often I get a call half an hour before hand telling me to listen in. Usually they play around 5:45 p.m. and then 7:15 a.m the next day. I would expect it either today, tomorrow or Friday, so make sure to listen.

After it plays I’ll be sure to include a link here for anyone who misses it.

Update: The story aired tonight at 5:45-ish. Let me know if you heard it. I caught it, and a friend who owns a house in Berlin gave me a call about it. It will also be on tomorrow morning. I’ll do a fresh post with the story shortly and a link, but I don’t want to try to overshadow the debate video with good press about Berlin. I pitched it with a Berlin versus it’s past perspective, so there isn’t a lot of controversy about the trail in the story. The fact is at all the public hearings and discussions about the trail I only heard one person opposed to it. So I think it’s a pretty accurate reflection of the situation. I hope you get to hear it.

Taxes, Improvements, Politicians and Papers

I am supposed to meet with Ron Goudreau and Paul Grenier (separately) to talk capital improvements and taxes. Mr. Grenier said the bond will result in at least a $1.67 increase in the tax rate, which currently is $29.82. Mr. Goudreau said the $29.82 includes the first year’s repayment on the bond. There won’t be a tax increase, he said, because the bond payments are already figured into the tax rate.
I minored in economics, so hopefully I have enough financial understanding to sort this out for the voters. I don’t think it’s enough for a reporter to write down what people are saying; they have to dig into the numbers and analyze what’s really there. There were sharp words at Monday’s meeting, and I reported them as well as I could. Now it’s time for me to look into the numbers behind the numbers.
So expect that in next week’s Berlin Reporter. I’m glad there are still people out there willing to pay the 50 cents. It keeps me in a job, doing what I love.

Side notes:

  • Mayoral debate at the Berlin city hall auditorium, Wednesday, October 28, at 6:30 p.m. Come see who you’re voting for and learn their positions.
  • It is constructive remarks like those LPJ has received recently that convince me to allow anonymous comments. Glad to see the discussion stay clean. I appreciate people posting, no matter the viewpoint, as long as their goal is to build a better Berlin. So thanks.
  • I bought the domain lastprintjournalist.com. I just put in a placeholder because I haven’t built the site yet, but I feel like I’ve got a fairly consistent thing going here, and I’d like to build it out. Journalists have to have websites these days, and I’m no exception. I’m not looking to move on from the Reporter, but I’m always looking for freelance opportunities, and if I’ve got a website to direct people to so they can see some of my work, it helps. Eventually I hope to have the the blog there, to house everything in one place, but for now I’m just saving my spot.
  • There’s a public hearing next Tuesday about the ATV trail.
  • It’s time to donate to NHPR. I freelance for them occasionally, and I’ll be reporting on Berlin’s ATV trail sometime in the next few weeks. They need money to pay me, so please, help me out by helping them.

I reread my story about Laidlaw investors saying they intend to send Mr. Grenier campaign contributions. It’s funny, but by the time stories come out I haven’t looked at them in a week. When I received calls and criticism about it, I hadn’t looked at it in a while. But after reading the story today I realize how off base those comments are. I thought maybe I’d screwed something up and been unfair to Mr. Grenier. But no, I was right on, and if I had to do it again I’d write the same story. I represented Mr. Borowski fairly, including his ties to the area and his good reasons for wanting to see Laidlaw succeed. I represented Mr. Grenier fairly as well, including his hesitation before he said he would reject any money from outside the city.
I thought maybe I’d left those things out. I thought maybe I’d been too worried about length and edited the story down. But no, I didn’t, I represented the various parties fairly and accurately. And in the end, no one in the story looks all that bad.

Sometimes accurate reporting makes people look like crap. That sucks, but that’s what I’m there for. Maybe there is some meeting going on in Berlin that, if made public, would make everyone look like jerks. I hope to be there. A few phone calls and complaints aren’t going to scare me off. My goal isn’t to make anyone look bad. In fact, no one has to answer to me. They are answering to the residents of Berlin. And of Gorham. And Milan, Dummer, Randolph and Shelburne. I’m asking questions for those people, because they don’t have the time to. It takes more than calling a fair story biased to make me stop. Or a page full of numbers.

P.S. Ryan — You don’t want to buy the paper if you stay in city government, because I won’t be able to curb my reporting for your sake. Sometime you’ll make an asinine comment that I’ll put in the paper, and you’ll want to fire me, and I’ll only have been doing my job, and it’ll be a great big mess. I agree, I’d like to see more people reading the Reporter. But the paper doesn’t come with the printing press. The daily owns their press. It’s in Conway and it prints three other daily papers; that makes their business viable. The Reporter is owned by Salmon Press, which owns 10 other weeklies around the state, which makes their business viable. Buy a press to print one paper and you’ll lose money at the speed of sound. Launching an online paper cuts that cost, but the advertising revenue online is negligible, not enough to pay for quality reporting. Berlin is struggling with the same challenges the rest of journalism is: how do you support quality reporting in the Internet age? Luckily community papers are successful enough to continue surviving. As far as I know, our market isn’t growing yet. I hope my reporting will change that, but in a world where people live more and more online that may not be realistic. There are blogs, yes, but few places online for high quality local news. Residents don’t need to read people’s opinions about what is going on in Berlin—they need the facts about what is going on in Berlin. There is not, at this time, a good model for how to provide that. I’m trying to resurrect a dinosaur here, singlehandedly. Berlin has a shot at rebirth, and it’s much greater than that of newspapers.
And Jon, thank you for the compliment on LPJ as a news destination. I’m glad people come here for news and to share their opinions, but there is 10 times as much news in every Reporter than goes on here and more in depth analysis. My story about shareholders didn’t break here, remember, it broke in the Reporter. We all come here talk about it, and people add value to my work by commenting here, but the fact is this is a side project that doesn’t pay for groceries or pay my rent. The real news is in the paper; this is just the 21st century water cooler.

I wish I had an answer for newspapers. They are so valuable. I love my work, and I think it is integral to maintaining democracy. I’m lucky to have a community and an employer that supports me. What the future holds I don’t know. Will Berlin support two papers when everyone gets high-speed Internet and starts posting their ads on Craigslist? I doubt it. Which paper will fold, or will both? I don’t know. But right now, at a time where Berlin needs quality reporting so residents can make important decisions about their future, the two papers are still there. Hopefully a new model will be created before the old one dies. Otherwise there won’t be anyone out there to find out who is giving money to what causes or who’s numbers about the tax rate are accurate.

So buy a paper. Maybe a subscription for your mom for her birthday? I don’t know, but I hope everyone reading this realizes the value of quality journalism. We need it, and the fact is, it isn’t free.

Election Season

Last night’s city council meeting could have filled a paper. There were more public comments and back and forth than I’ve ever seen there. I had 600 words to capture the entire meeting. That sucks. 600 words is enough to cover one issue in depth, or two issues briefly. I chose one issue in depth, which of course meant I left a lot out.
The city needs to start videotaping the meetings. I, and no other print reporter, could capture the energy of last night effectively. But I could make residents aware something worth noting happened, and then they could watch for themselves to see what really went on.
To me, last night’s meeting was almost entirely political. Both sides made their stand, their appeal to the voters. Paul Grenier, Bob Danderson and Mike Rozak could be accused of provoking the politicization of the evening, but Mayor David Bertrand’s written mayor’s report was not a reaction to their comments. Both sides were taking advantage of the opportunity.
But there were some really interesting developments. Councilor Ron Goudreau’s challenge of Mr. Grenier’s numbers was great, if for nothing else than to clearly portray the differences in the two camps. Councilor Ryan Landry passionately urged Berlin to reject Mr. Grenier’s and Mr. Danderson’s ideas. His comments were emotional, clearly rejecting the return to the past these two men represent. They would resonate with some residents, but whether they represent the views of the majority of voters is unclear.
I couldn’t imaging a more interesting meeting. The entire city should have been there to watch. The next two meetings should have even more fireworks, particularly the one the night before the election, on November 2. That will be the public hearing for the capital improvement plan resolution, which, despite the candidates’ comments, the council moved forward. I can’t wait for that one.

But I didn’t even have room for the resolution the city did pass, to allow the police department to get a $10,000 grant. And I didn’t have room to talk about how the city decided to file for interveener status with the PUC in the Clean Power/PSNH affair. I didn’t get to talk about Jon Edwards’ comments, or Barry Kelly’s comments, because I was so pressed for space.

The newspaper is a tool, but it is no substitute for civic engagement. For the next few weeks, I hope people put down the paper, shut down the computer, and come to the meetings. See what these people are really saying. Try to understand it better. The Berlin Reporter or the daily paper are a horrible filter for what happened last night. So is the opinion of almost anyone who was there, because it’s nearly impossible not to have an opinion on these issues. But if you are there you can make up your mind, without having to rely on anyone else.
I am going to meet with Mr. Grenier to try to better understand his numbers to see if what he said last night was true. I am also going to meet with representatives from the council to see if their numbers for the capital improvement plan make sense. That is the job of a paper—to try to find the truth, not just print what people say. But the two different groups have such different visions for the city, it almost doesn’t matter what they say. Their views for Berlin are worlds apart, it seems, and Laidlaw is only part of it. The community needs to make an informed decision, and it needs to make sure its city council reflects their vision of the city’s future. What does that mean? Citizens need to show up. They need to learn what these people stand for. They have to hear the arguments for themselves. No amount of mediation from the media will do it justice. Their words are more powerful than mine, and I implore Berlin to come out and hear them.

Hole in the ground…

I wonder if communities really want to know what is going on. Do they have a real interest in journalism that looks past the bake sales and the town events to what is going on behind the scenes?
I am working to raise people’s awareness, or at least access, to what is going on in Berlin. I intend to incorporate video, audio and written reporting on the city, because every bit of openness is more information for people to make decisions from.
People like the idea of openness, just not when they are under the microscope. But it takes an informed citizenry for democracy to work.
I didn’t pick sides, but stories quickly become partisan issues. Last week I spoke to Paul Grenier about receiving money from out of town donations, and I wrote a story that quoted him as saying he would not accept such money. I also called Mayor David Bertrand to ask him the same questions, and I investigated reports he had accepted out of town money in the past. I challenged both candidates because that is what I am supposed to do as a reporter. Both stories appeared in Wednesday’s Reporter.
People didn’t like it. I received complaints and accusations that the stories were sensationalization. It makes me wonder what people would like from their paper. Do they want to become an informed citizenry, or do they want to have their views reinforced?

The big news, to me, was what Laidlaw investors were trying to do. NOT what Laidlaw was trying to do, because they weren’t trying to do anything, and NOT what Mr. Grenier was doing, because he was doing exactly what he should: he said he wouldn’t accept those contributions. So I started the article with what those investors were trying to do, and I included Mr. Grenier’s response that the mayors seat couldn’t be bought.

And yet someone posted on LPJ that Mr. Grenier was basically running for financial gain, while people who side with Mr. Grenier said I’d thrown him under the bus.
Maybe no one reads papers anymore. Maybe they get through the first paragraph and then make up the rest of the story themselves. Maybe they just read the headlines. The story I wrote quoted Mr. Grenier as saying he wouldn’t take money, and it quoted Lou Bravakis as saying Laidlaw hadn’t tried to give money to any candidate. It laid out the facts in a pretty clear way, which may not have made the investors look great, but it pretty clearly absolved Mr. Grenier and Laidlaw from blame.
And there was a story about Mr. Bertrand. No one cared that Mel Liston of Clean Power offered Mayor Bertrand money, which he turned down. Interesting.
I don’t get it. Maybe I need tweak my writing to better focus people’s attention on who they should get mad at. I don’t believe that’s the case, however: if you’re reading a newspaper, you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind. It’s my job to lay out the facts, not to interpret them.
Was it easy to assume Mr. Grenier was at fault for investors’ actions while excusing Mayor Bertrand for Mr. Liston’s offer? Maybe he inspires stronger feelings, and therefore stronger reactions? I don’t know. Did no anyone even make it down the page to the story about Mr. Bertrand?
How about both men acted admirably in the face of attempts by out-of-town groups to influence the election? That’s what I thought the stories said, while highlighting the flagrancy of the Laidlaw investors’ actions, but that’s not what people read. I must be making a mistake in my writing, or I’ve got too high expectations for readers.

I guess it all does come down to Laidlaw. A former reporter said they stayed away from of the issue because people lost all capacity for reason whenever it came up. I learned what that reporter meant for the first time this week. That doesn’t mean I will be anymore delicate about how I report, because I don’t see any other way to get the facts out, but I will be more prepared for criticism and biased comments from both sided.

What are the community’s expectations for openness? How much of this stuff do they want to know? Are they able to make decisions if the facts are before them, or do they need to be spoon-fed their opinions? Judging by the number of people who attend city council each week, people have other concerns than how the city officials are running things. I am not trying to disappoint them by reporting on more than the latest flowerbed renovation. I see in depth coverage as what I’m supposed to do, but maybe I’m disturbing people who just want to be left alone to think the way they want to think. People want to be mad at Mr. Grenier and excuse Mayor Bertrand, without ever making it far enough into the story to see that both men are rare examples of people in Berlin who actually care. Or they want to be mad at me for exposing investors’ actions, without reading far enough to see I never accused either candidate of wrongdoing.
Both men want to do what is best for the city, but they have different views of how to get there. I do not support of oppose either one; I am a referee working to ensure a clean fight. But what people want is to have their opinions supported and a hole in the ground to stick their heads in.

In Berlin?! Really?!

I’ve got a great story for next week’s Reporter. Really great. I don’t want to go into it here, but next week’s issue will not be the one to miss. Make sure you don’t.

I have to say, I love my job.

Sorry to all interested parties, but I have no interest in being an editor or a publisher. I want to be out there, where the story is happening, digging things up. That’s what I’m good at, and that’s where I should stay.
Furthermore, there is no Berlin Reporter press—there is Salmon Press, which owns the Reporter and 10 other papers, and they are all printed in Massachusetts. I couldn’t buy the paper because there would be no press for me to print a paper. That business plan just doesn’t work.
Besides, I love my job. Why would I leave? I have a boss who supports me while I do my best to improve the level of discourse in Berlin, plus benefits and vacation. I get to talk with every aspect of the city, and beyond. It’ll be a while before I quit this arrangement.

And no one would be happy with a Monday paper. You would wind up with last week’s city council news, which is often some of the most pertinent information in the paper. Ever notice the Reporter comes out the same day the daily paper reports city council meetings? That is the one time we really cover the same news on the same deadline. That’s key. Our timeliness in this one area is important and not worth forsaking. I understand it’d be nice to start out the week with quality journalism, but it’s not in the cards. I’d hate to be reporting council happenings a week late. I far prefer the model we have now.

But thanks for the constructive criticism. I’m working on improving things even more. I want to get video capability and get important interviews up online. I’d love to see the council meetings broadcast live. I’d like to be Tweeting from every meeting I go to. What I need, though, is for everyone to buy ads in the Reporter so they expand it. It could be more pages, two sections, if it brought in the revenue. I’m doing my part, improving the reporting; now it’s your turn to convince all your friends to buy the paper.

Next week, they’ll want to. Believe me, it’s worth it.