BCH override coverage fell short
How nice that the Belmont Citizen Herald has decided, in the wake of a critical override vote, to put its journalist hat back on and do hard reporting. An article online is now asking for “sources needed for override analysis.” That’s so funny, ’cause it seemed there were no shortage of unnamed sources just dying to talk a week ago, before the vote was taken, and there didn’t seem to be any problem with using their words then. Now that the vote is in the books, looks like its back to AP-standard reporting and folks with opinions are hard to come by. Go figure!
Let’s cut to the chase: I think Belmont’s new online paper, Patch, with editor and longtime Belmontonian Franklin Tucker, did a great job covering the election and the last minute dramatics, explaining the inaccuracies in the messages and doing the good work of getting officials and residents to go on record, explain what was going on and comment. It always helps to have boots on the ground where the story’s happening. The next big job is tracking down who is behind the messages, but I trust Franklin and Patch will be on that task now that the election is over.
Not so the Citizen Herald, whose editor Tony Schinella covered the last minute zigs and zags from his home in the Granite State with a not-so-subtle libertarian slant. I give the BCH low marks all around for its election coverage, a big contrast to its coverage of the Selectmen and School Committee races which I thought was well planned and comprehensive.
This time around, though, Schinella used a series of stories and editorials to throw mud at the YES effort and showed an unwillingness to do even the basic blocking and tackling that define quality reporting. Quick to repeat unfounded rumors and speculation about the motivations or actions of the YES effort, the school administration and town unions, he shielded even the most egregious exaggerations of the NO campaign from readers. In an article dated June 12, for example (I’m not even going to link to it) “Belmont Clerk releases push poll text,” Schinella actually did the NO camp a favor by repeating the text of a factually incorrect robocall message charging that override money would go towards raises for town and school employees without bothering to set the record straight. (Fact: raises were contractually mandated and would happen automatically, while override money was being directed to preserving services on both the town and school side.) Instead, Schinella pivoted immediately in the spotlight to (unfounded and unsourced) rumors that the YES campaign was targeting Town Meeting members:
“Political observers in Belmont suspect that override proponents are preparing to target Town Meeting members who did not sign pro-override promotional materials in the annual town election in 2011, meaning any fallout from Monday’s results could reverberate through town politics for at least another nine months.”
You don’t need to go to Journalism school to know that crediting speculative or downright inflammatory comments and rumors to unnamed “sources,” and then not trying to verify those claims isn’t kosher. Of course, mainstream and credible news outlets have been wrestling with the anonymous sourcing issue for a long time. The New York Times notoriously got burned by rogue reporter Jayson Blair, who often fabricated sources, then granted those fake people the courtesy of anonymity in his article. In the wake of that debacle, the
Times adopted stricter policies around anonymous sources – they should be the exception rather than the rule and, when anonymity was granted to a source, readers must be told why.
When I called Tony on this – noting that he credited an incendiary comment to an unnammed “political observer” without bothering to say why that source needed anonymity (in my experience, its rare for political pundits to want anonymity), he said the quotes were from real people – trust him! Now it seems like those “political observers” have clammed up? As to bias in the reporting, Tony explained that:
“Since we no longer have a Belmont blog, I occassionally write things on the site that would otherwise be blog posts. We’re putting everything on the site that would otherwise be a blog post. The only blog we now have is the Mitt blog. I’ve done this with foodie stuff, political notes, and other things. That’s what the election notes series basically is.”
So FYI- your factual town paper is now a fact-optional political blog — election coverage, foodie stuff. Its all in there together. Great.
Election day brought another article: “2010 Override: Union official denies public resources used in pro-override outreach effort” which downplayed the erroneous and anonymous robocalls, equating them with a factual and clearly identified automated call that OneBelmont sponsored with Selectman Ralph Jones. In this case, Schinella repeated the rumor that the OneBelmont spots were also unattributed, but made no effort to verify the ‘unattributed Onebelmont call” rumor before going to print with it. He’ll say that he set the record straight eventually…after publishing. No matter, the damage was done.
I think Belmont was poorly served by its main paper and I, for one, will be discontinuing my subscription to the paper . Belmont deserves better.
In the end, I don’t want or need a paper that agrees with me or folks who think like me. I do need a paper that strives to sustain our community by fostering understanding and dialog based on facts, not invective, rumor and cheap political posturing. I need a paper that takes as its primary aim to be fair and balanced in its coverage, and that never sees fit to let its journalistic standards drop in the quest to score a political point or incite controversy. The Citizen Herald failed on all these points in its coverage of the override. Its time for a change.
I agree with the important points raised here. I have read the Citizen-Herald every week for years and have seen the quality go down hill with respect to Tony Schinella's work. His research and accuracy are spotty, at best. I unfortunately often find myself thinking, “unprofessional, incendiary, second-rate.”
The town voted NO, 5 precincts out of 7 do not support giving the town nor the schools more money. One Belmont's campaign blew it and now they want to play the “blame” game.
On another note, you were a drama queen then (@ wellesley high school), you are a drama queen now.
Perhaps you can channel your drama to drum up support for a local chapter of http://www.freegaza.org
Just my thoughts from good ole' Cross St.
You gotta ask yourself: what would Burlington do?
Hi Paul,
Happy Father’s Day. I hope it was a good one for you and yours. I’m probably not alone in saying that we’ve missed your blogging lately. You have a unique perspective on things and the more views that are available to the public, the better. However, your take on the information we put together and published during the override election is flat out wrong on virtually all fronts. I’m going to take this opportunity to set the record straight for you and your readers. I’m happy to talk to you or anyone else about any concerns they have about our products. You all know where to reach me.
First, and probably most importantly, since things are changing so fast in the media world: You (and others) seem not to understand that both WickedLocalBelmont.com and the Belmont Citizen-Herald print edition are two different products. One is a weekly print publication; the other is a website that is updated daily. Both have exclusive and shared content. In addition, we have integrated our blog entries into the main website. For nearly two years, WLB hosted a blog called “Notes from the Hill.” On the blog, Cassie and I wrote all kinds of slice of life stuff, food reviews, weird things we saw during our daily work skeds, and also blogged from Town Meeting and other events. We also had a blog featuring potholes and one about Mitt Romney. After the redesign of the site last year, we decided to drop all but the Romney blog, for a number of reasons. The most important one was that most readers consider WLB a “blog” anyway and the entries we were putting together for the blog could easily be turned into briefs for both WLB and/or the print edition, if warranted, saving us time and creating more original content for readers. So, blogging about Town Meeting, food reviews, Twittering, and yes, blog-styled notes from the campaign like the ones posted over the weekend before the Monday vote, are going to be posted on WLB and have been for months.
Second, in the request for override sources, I didn’t get a chance to get specific enough at the time it was posted (I have updated the request). Specifically, we’re looking to talk to undecided voters who were moved to vote “Yes” by arguments made by One Belmont and “No” voters who were either trying to send a specific message to the town or were motivated by a specific issue. We will continue to look creatively at what makes Belmont tick and delve into the historic divide in town which continues to this day.
I have looked over my pre-Monday posts again and have also asked a few work and town colleagues to do the same. It’s been an interesting back and forth. One legitimate criticism was that I should have used a different brief ID other than “2010 Override” for the online posts about the campaign … something like “Campaign notes” or “From the field” would have been more appropriate.
None of us see the “libertarian slant” you claim but, then again, you are a unique person, with your own distinct viewpoint (a journalist who has become an activist, whereas I’m a former activist, with long ties to progressive causes and campaigns, who became a journalist because I saw a void in serious community journalism).
There is so much in your post that needs responding to that I don’t even know where to start. Here are a few:
You wrote: “Schinella used a series of stories and editorials to throw mud at the YES effort and showed an unwillingness to do even the basic blocking and tackling that define quality reporting…”
First, this is just not true. Every story we published during the time period of the override campaign was thorough and even-handed with links to documents online. Since when did hard-hitting journalism that tells people the truth throwing mud?
Second, it is not the job of a reporter or editor of a private, neutral news organization to perform “blocking and tackling” moves for the Yes campaign. That is the job of the Yes campaign.
Editorials, as you know, are opinions. But if you think that suggesting in editorials that town officials not close the COA; not raid trash override funds to spend on other things; find more attrition savings from retiring school employees, etc., is throwing mud, your view of what true journalism is would seem to be quite clouded.
Lastly, before the vote, I received a number of compliments from members of the Yes effort about the newspaper’s final override editorial. If you didn’t personally like our coverage, that’s fine. But this claim is bull.
You wrote: “Instead, Schinella pivoted immediately in the spotlight to (unfounded and unsourced) rumors that the YES campaign was targeting Town Meeting members…”
First, this story is true. It’s understandable that you don’t know a lot about Belmont history since you just moved to town. I’ve been covering Belmont off and on now for more than five years. I’ve been a reader of the Citizen-Herald and its website for more than 12 years. I have spent hundreds of hours skimming through the archives of our newspaper and talking with people about the town’s history. Some of the people involved in the Yes effort have notorious reputations for targeting Town Meeting members under the guise of “educating the public” about the true political positions of members. It happened to Walter McLaughlin in 2007; it happened to people who wanted the Uplands developed after the divisive rezoning battles; it happened before and after the McLean rezoning; etc. And, yes, conservatives have been involved in this too. The people who were involved in the most recent example where part of your group and political observers speculated privately that this was being done to target people next year. It has happened before, it was happening days before the election, it was confirmed by a Yes supporter privately, and was stopped only when the town clerk stepped in after numerous complaints from members. You don’t know what you’re talking about on this one and haven’t done even a cursory amount of research to understand the history of your town. I will add that in this case, Patch got the story wrong (one of many wrong things published on that site in the run up before the election).
You wrote: “In an article dated June 12, for example (I’m not even going to link to it) “Belmont Clerk releases push poll text,” Schinella actually did the NO camp a favor by repeating the text of a factually incorrect robocall message charging that override money would go towards raises for town and school employees without bothering to set the record straight. (Fact: raises were contractually mandated and would happen automatically, while override money was being directed to preserving services on both the town and school side.)”
First, this was a campaign post not an article.
Second, republishing the text of the robocall is news. Some folks didn’t get the call and didn’t know what everyone was talking about.
Third, while it is true that most of the pay increases in FY11 were budgeted already and contractually mandated, it is also true that if the pay raises didn’t exist, the amount of the override money that was to be spent on employees wouldn’t be needed. No town official denies that.
Some of the raises WERE NOT contractually mandated but were agreed to even though everyone knew there was no money available for them. The robocall contained the phrase “among other items” too, meaning that whoever issued the robocall knew what they were doing: They used the most powerful message against the override they could the same way the Yes side used its most powerful messages to motivate people to support the override.
No one likes “negative” campaigning, but it happens, and it’s too bad that the Yes effort was complete blindsided by the stealth No effort. However, any true analysis of the first robocall would have stated both sides (and not the phony stories Patch did). It would have done the Yes effort a DISSERVICE to have honestly and accurately analyzed the point of both of the vote no robocalls.
The second call can’t be disputed on its accuracy: Override money would go towards paying the salaries and benefits of employees and after the first year officials can use the override money on anything they want to. Even you know that because all the positions were listed in the Yes campaign information and published repeatedly by us. The DOR and town counsel established post-first year use of the override money a couple of weeks before the override. Instead of being critical about our coverage you should be THANKING US for not doing a fully open and honest comprehensive analysis of the stealth “no” effort before the vote.
As far as Patch goes, I will say that with the exception of the storm coverage, we’re not impressed with what we’ve seen. Cupcake features, phony, slanted stories, botched numbers (and not just once, which would be understandable, we all make mistakes, but repeatedly), wild claims like the public library losing accreditation if the override failed … just not true. If that’s what you and others want, enjoy it: Patch has two years and then the Wall Street $$$ runs out. The Citizen-Herald has been in Belmont in some way, shape, or form for 90 years. I think our chances of continuing to be an award-winning product that is read by thousands of Belmontians and is respected inside one of the largest newspaper companies in the world are pretty good.
I’m not going to go into why Christian and I shouldn’t be targeted because of where we can afford to live. It’s beneath you but you and your friends to even comment on it. But have at it makes you feel better. I could have applied for one of the Waverley Woods units when it opened (since we more than qualified under the income guidelines) but I have always tried to make my own way.
I could go on but what’s the point? While I respect and admire you and some of your friends and have had interesting conversations over beers and online with you all, you’re not being honest when you say: “…I don’t want or need a paper that agrees with me or folks who think like me …” That is exactly what you want. You have formed a set of ideals in your mind and cannot fathom anything beyond that, at your own peril. Your negativity and angst are clearly consuming you. Take a quick second, take a deep breath, and reflect on the rage and anger you feel right now in the wake of the override’s defeat … Now understand that what you are feeling is EXACTLY how many people in Belmont feel or have felt for MANY, MANY YEARS. It doesn’t make it right or ideal but that’s the way your town has always been. It truly is time for the community to come together and work through its problems. You are a part of that solution if you want to be.
Lots to respond to, as well, Tony. Taking a couple days with the family on vacation, but will try to respond more completely when time allows. One thing: “activist” is a charged term. As an example: conservatives use the term “activist judges” to basically paint folks with different legal opinions than they hold as driven by something other than impartiality and a deep understanding of the law. I wonder if you use it in the same light – Paul is an “activist,” which, by definition is a “doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.” I'm just an engaged citizen of Belmont and a voter who's trying to advocate for what I think is in the best long-term interests of the town. Are the YES people “activists” but the NO people simply dutiful citizens or “ordinary folks”? Aren't they “activists,” too -and aren't you an “activist editor” for vigorously supporting your viewpoints? You and the BCH was, I believe, one of only two or three papers in the entire Commonwealth to endorse the income tax repeal in its editorial pages. Most folks would consider than “vigorous support of a controversial issue.”
Hi Paul. Feel free to respond later either on your blog or privately. Either way. I don't look at “activist” as a negative term at all in the way I used it to describe you, and formerly, me. If you took it that way, I'm sorry.
I don't look at myself as an “activist editor” … I'm just an editor. I call them like I see them. Some folks agree, some don't.
On the Question 1 editorial in 2008 (jeez, can't you guys let this go already?), please don't forget to mention the entire reason for endorsing a “yes” vote on that: The editorial clearly stated that Belmont residents should stop sending money to the state – getting little in return – AND spend more money LOCALLY. Ending the income tax would have been one way to do that. Somehow, you and others like to forget that part of the editorial. Have a good vaca.
Hi, Tony:
Excellent response! I wouldn't bother replying to any further requests or writings of Paul Roberts of Cross St. It is not worth any value to do so.
Paul is mid-valued blogger at best and he is a special interest activist. One strategy would be to dismiss any further enquires of Paulies.
Paul is pro-blockades, he has try to block my responses to his blog. Using socialist tactics reminds of other current world events.
I have suggested for Paul to focus his drama-interest writings towards drumming-up support for a local chapter of http://www.freegaza.org.
Kind regards,
pro-peace, anti-suffering belmont citizen.
Poor Paul couldn't get his hands on anymore of my money.
Agreed.
Thank you for pointing me to an alternative to the CH. I look forward to reading some actual news.