Newspapers are easy targets

By Scott T. Holland
Associate Editor

July 26, 2006 11:06 am

— Let’s walk though the steps of an all-too typical scenario for people who work in community newspapers.
1. Local government body passes a law.
2. Citizens react negatively when law impacts their way of life.
3. Local government body backpedals at high rate of speed, then fails to lay out plan for moving forward.
4. Newspaper editorial or individual columnist comes down hard on local government body for making avoidable mistakes.
5. Members of local government body choose to get mad at newspaper or columnist, not the law or the people who passed it.
Obviously I’m a bit biased in this case. But it’s only because I’ve seen steps one through five in practice many, many times in the past six years, including the recent squabble over Clinton’s large vehicle parking ordinance.
Some — such as a city department head, in a comment made to another Herald newsroom employee about a different issue — would simply say the reason I keep seeing step 5 (people mad at newspaper) is my desire to “sell newspapers.” However, so long as the newspaper doesn’t leap to step 4 without first seeing steps 2 (angry citizenry) and 3 (backpedaling) the accusation of inflammatory journalism is unfounded.
When the people are inflamed already — and just ask the 60 people who got $50 parking tickets a few Fridays ago — it may be easy to blame the media, but easy isn’t always right. We last wrote about the large vehicle ordinance more than six months ago. But when people started getting tickets out of the blue and complaining to City Hall, the story was reborn.
Does a newspaper add fuel to the fire? Yes — literally and figuratively. But at the same time, what good would be done by ignoring the story until it’s resolved?
For every department head who thinks we’re just trying to “sell newspapers,” there’s a poster on our Web site forum accusing us of being third-rate journalists who don’t ask enough tough questions at City Hall. For every subscriber who wishes we had more front page pictures of kids playing at the city pool, there’s another who wants to know why we don’t go undercover at Ashford University to uncover the so-called secrets of the enrollment call center.
Whatever the reason, I see step 5 quite a bit. Not every week, not even every month. But often enough to notice a trend. To some degree, it’s understandable. I don’t like being called out for my mistakes, either (and sharp-eyed readers know I make plenty). But this is one of the hazards of running for public office — having your successes and failures played out in the public eye.
Maybe that’s a reason why some qualified people choose not to run for public office. The pay is nominal but the scrutiny is mammoth. Still, if you can’t stand the heat, don’t start fires in the kitchen by firing off responses to newspaper editorials without a little bit of introspection.
The person in question here is an unnamed city councilman (whose initials are Ron Mallicoat). He was not the least bit happy with our July 13 editorial taking the Clinton City Council to task for the mishandling of three controversial parking issues (downtown, residential handicap and large vehicle) over the past few years.
Mallicoat feels the editorial did not give him and recently appointed councilman Mark Vulich enough credit for their potential to reverse the trend of ridiculous parking legislation. And yet, in his opposition, Mallicoat failed to address some key points.
What was his role in the downtown parking ordinance fiasco that spanned three years, including the end of his first and all of his aborted second term? If he was so opposed, as he said recently, to the large vehicle ordinance, why did he not make it a campaign point when he sought his current seat last November since the election season and ordinance creation were simultaneous? Why did he then wait almost seven full months, until the citizens got ticked, to make a stink about the ordinance?
And why should it be the newspaper’s job to draw a line between two members and the rest of the council? That’s inflammatory journalism. If Mallicoat wants to distance himself from his colleagues he has ample opportunity to do just that without our help.
I like Ron Mallicoat. I voted for him before and I’d probably do it again. But getting mad at a newspaper isn’t going to make the council’s problems go away. We may be an easy target, but in this case the real problem is the law itself, the people who passed it and those who allowed it to remain on the books.
We may like to sell newspapers, but no matter how many we manage to move, we still don’t have the power to write $50 parking tickets.
Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.