IYAM: The Times, and other papers, are a-changing

News is different now.

Time was there was competition, which was a good thing. Reporters wanted to get the information first, to break the story. They wanted to “scoop” the other papers, and radio and television too.

That isn’t the case now. Locally there used to be three reporters at the press table, one for the local weekly, one for the Olean daily and one for the Bradford daily. But for several years now there has been one, all-purpose reporter covering “meetings of record” (mainly governmental) and a number of other “hard news” events.

No matter who that all-purpose reporter might be, there is no way the result, for all the readers, could be equal to result of the other model, where three sets of eyes and ears observed, and then three different observers “processed” the information and produced the stories.

As a consumer of news—actually, a news junkie—I know that it is desirable to have several sources of news, more than one account of the same event, to read. There may be no contradictions, but one reporter may include some background or a quote that another did not. One may have realized the significance of a detail or a remark that the others did not.

That’s why, for years, I subscribed to two weekly news magazines, and received two or three daily papers and at least one weekly.

But now the Olean and the Bradford papers are owned by the same company, share some staff and swap news back and forth freely. The same thing is true in communities large and small, across the country.

There is less coverage going on when one person tries to cover too many things. There are things that can’t be covered at all, or at least not “in person,” because one reporter can be on just one place at a time.

It used to be that we could cover Annin Township Supervisors and the Port Allegany Borough Council, even though they both fell on first Monday nights. One reporter went to one, another reporter went to the other.

When the reportorial “stable” went from two to one, Annin Township Supervisors weren’t covered anymore. Borough council meetings were, though.

Other local government meetings did not conflict, usually. The borough council met on first Monday nights, the school board met on second and fourth Monday nights.

Then a couple of months ago the school board voted to meet on FIRST and second Mondays.

The reasons given sounded pretty weak. They were given by the superintendent, who might not have been aware of the conflict being created. One was that the kind of meeting that would be held on the first Monday night would be a committee-of-the-whole meeting, with the regular business meeting being on the following (second) Monday night.

That way, the explanation went, the “discussion” and “reports” meeting would be only one week ahead of the “main” meeting. The matters discussed in detail at the committee-of-the-whole meeting would still be fresh in board members’ minds.

To my protests (quickly declared out of order by the superintendent, although it would be up to the board president to make such a ruling) that this conflict would prevent my covering one or the other important meeting, the superintendent said few important matters would be voted on, in the first Monday meeting, and he would answer my questions about issues if I called him.

I would hope no one on our school board has trouble remembering, for two, or even three weeks, what was discussed in a committee-in-the-whole meeting. And as it turns out, important matters have indeed been voted on, lots of them, in those committee-of-the-whole meetings (which have been defined, for many years, as general purpose meetings as well, with the board making decisions on anything it wishes to, not just discussing matters for future action).

Other arguments made to me by the superintendent, as to why it  shouldn’t matter that I would not be able to cover the first Monday school board meeting were that members of the public who were interested in knowing what went on could attend in person, and that the papers I work for could send another reporter if I couldn’t attend, and that the school district has a website.

I find those arguments rather flimsy. Members of the press actually do not have any rights of access to information that do not pertain to the public at large. The public cannot attend two simultaneous meetings any more than I can.

So far, since realizing I could not attend the committee-of-the-whole meeting on first Mondays, the papers in question have not expanded or juggled their staff to provide another reporter.

Obviously the fact that the school district has a website does not mean that news coverage is not needed. Many organizations and government agencies have websites and newsletters, and so do various elected officials from governor to members of Congress or the legislature, and the county, etc.

That is where those agencies and officials tell us what they want us to know, in the way they want to tell us. That is not to be mistaken for news coverage. It’s public relations, akin to advertising, and it can be useful and interesting, but it is not the same as news coverage.

Press coverage had already taken a hit, school district wise, when the “late public comments” item on the agenda was eliminated. It’s important for there to be public comments before agenda items are considered, and ALSO for there to be comments on and questions about matters that were just discussed or even voted on, at the end of the meeting. The latter opportunity for public/press has been removed.

The quality of news coverage and writing in general is in decline. I am discouraged. Government secrecy is increasing, and not just in Washington, D.C. With the coming of email and cell phones, the always-in-contact rhythm of communications, it is all too easy for officials to arrange things out of the public eye, with public meetings being mostly “for show.”

Peace.