Thursday, February 7, 2008
Al Diamon
Put Your Money Where Your Editorials Are
With the state facing a budget shortfall approaching $200 million, this might seem like a simple way to save a few bucks. But editorial writers don’t see it that way.
According to the Bangor Daily News, “This changes the dynamics of the government reaching out to the public to describe its business to forcing the public to find notification in cyberspace.”
The Lewiston Sun Journal: “After all, an effective, efficient online system of circulating public notices is a marvelous concept. But not as the lone method of delivering critical government information to the public it serves.”
The Courier-Gazette in Rockland: “While saving money is a worthy goal, the principle behind public notices is to make sure that the public is informed of pending actions by state and local governments. While access to the Internet has grown significantly, there are still many people who are not connected to the World Wide Web.”
And the Maine Press Association (in an ad published in the Portland Press Herald): “These public notices are provided to you as a service of the state, regional and local governments and this newspaper.”
All these publications insist their opposition to L.D. 1878 isn’t simply because they have a financial interest in running those ads. “[T]he advertising revenues it affects are a tiny fraction of any newspapers’ [sic] total,” according to a Bangor Daily editorial.
If that’s the case, the solution is obvious.
Run the notices for free.
Many Maine newspapers have called for state lawmakers to cut spending. They’ve also acknowledged that doing so will likely cause pain to many people dependent on publicly funded programs. Here’s an opportunity for the print media to give its credibility a big boost by assuming its share of the suffering.
If, as the Sun Journal claims, “The ideal scenario is having both published and online notices,” all that’s required to make that happen is a commitment to public service by a few publishers.
I’m amazed nobody thought of this before.
Al Diamon can be e-mailed at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
Posted on Thursday, February 7, 2008 in Permalink
Views expressed in this blog belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect either Down East's editorial stance or the views of Down East Enterprise. We ask that comments be civil; anyone who refuses to self edit runs the risk of being banned from commenting on Down East.com content. Further, please limit material cited from other publications to fewer than 75 words and a link; anything more riles copyright attorneys.
Reader Comments:
I'm surprised at this position.
Government is making LD 1878 a solely fiscal matter, by ignoring the principled objection of newspapers: that government cannot compromise on its fundamental duty to inform the public.
Your solution - do it for nothing - is fallacious.
And as somebody who often says Maine's media isn't doing its job, asking newspapers to assume our “share of the suffering" is contradictory.
Newspapers provide many "free" services to the state. We rent office space in Augusta. We pay reporters, photographers and editors to cover the Legislature. And we pay state taxes.
The state contracts for many services, like repairing roads. Should highway contractors donate repaving work? Should office suppliers donate pens and paper?
Providing basic information to the public is an important service.
The state should do its small part to ensure a informed citizenry.
More important still, the state budget shortfall is of the state’s making.
By your argument, business should work for free as a public service, instead of demanding the state exercise fiscal restraint when it can’t pay its bills.
This precedent for newspapers would be striking:
Instead of demanding fiscal accountability, you suggest newspapers enable the state by providing, for nothing, a service others must purchase.
As a "public service." And this would improve newspaper credibility?
I don't see how.