When a community has been without a reliable source of local news for some time, government officials can become accustomed to operating without much scrutiny. And when a feisty startup arrives on the scene to report stories that had gone unreported, that can prove to be quite a shock to the powers that be.
Which is as good an explanation as any for what’s unfolding in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The venerable Old Colony Memorial had become virtually a ghost newspaper under the Gannett chain’s ownership, mainly publishing regional coverage from other Gannett papers. Then, in 2023, the Plymouth Independent, a nonprofit digital outlet, arrived on the scene.
The Independent is larger and more ambitious than many such projects; the editor and CEO is Mark Pothier, a former Globe journalist and, before that, editor of the Old Colony Memorial back when it was still covering local news. One of the Independent’s directors is Walter Robinson, a Plymouth resident who’s best known for leading the Globe’s Spotlight Team when it was exposing the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.
One Plymouth official who is taking particular umbrage at the increased scrutiny being brought by the Independent is the town manager, Derek Brindisi. According to a message to readers that Pothier published today, Brindisi has ordered “all appointed town officials to cease all communication with the PI.” The only exception is that town officials will be permitted to respond to public-records requests from the Independent, which, after all, they are required to do under state law.
For his unwarranted attempts to prevent the Independent from holding local government accountable, Brindisi is receiving a New England Muzzle Award. “In my decades as a journalist, Brindisi’s blanket edict is like nothing I have ever encountered,” writes Pothier, who also says:
Our job as journalists is to hold government officials accountable and to provide readers with the reliable information they need to foster a functioning democracy. In that respect, the relationship between governments and journalists is necessarily adversarial. We’re supposed to be skeptical of people in power.
Officials, paid public professionals, and Town Meeting members make decisions involving policies and spending that inevitably spark debate. They serve in the public’s interest. The Independent reports on them in the public’s interest.
Before the PI arrived, most Plymouth residents — including myself — had a hard time finding out what was going on in town. Perhaps naively, I figured officials would welcome the chance to present the town’s perspective on important issues. Some have — or did until this latest order to stop talking to us. Brindisi, however, has only reached out to express displeasure with our coverage.
Pothier goes into some detail about a couple of routine stories that upset Brindisi. One was written by Andrea Estes, a former investigative reporter for the Globe. (Estes’ career at the Globe came to a bad end for reasons that have never been adequately explained, but there is no question that she’s an experienced and accomplished journalist.) The other was written by Fred Thys, a former reporter for WBUR Radio in Boston and VTDigger, a leading investigative news outlet in Vermont.
Brindisi, for his part, childishly refers to the Independent as the “Plymouth Enquirer” and has complained about the Independent’s “distasteful reporting” and efforts to “humiliate town officials.”
This isn’t the first Muzzle to be awarded to Plymouth officials in recent months. Back in July, I gave one to select board member Kevin Canty for suggesting that an unnamed person was risking prison for recording the audio of a board meeting without informing those present. Canty was referring to Thys, who had made no effort to hide the fact that he was recording the meeting, which was also being live-streamed on YouTube.
Thys may have been in technical violation of the law, but seriously? “Canty and I later spoke about the incident,” Pothier writes. “We both agreed it could have been handled better, perhaps with a simple request that Thys announce he was recording.”
Pothier also credits Canty with working to mend the rift between Brindisi and the Independent, but that those efforts have come to naught.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was shocked to see a “dangling modifier” in the above story (at the beginning of the third paragraph).
So am I.
Now fixed.
I know nothing about Massachusetts open-government laws or Plymouth politics, so I’m asking: Can the elected board not instruct the city manager (whom, I presume, they hire and can fire) to respond to questions from the news media to the best of his ability and in keeping with open-government law?
As I understand it, town managers have quite a bit of autonomy, and select boards can’t order them to do specific things. But the board can fire the town manager at any time for any reason, or for no reason.
That’s correct, Dan.
Yes.
Did Brindisi say to cease all communications indefinitely? I thought his letter said “until issues can be resolved,” right? Hoping that result will come about, as a good working relationship between a town government and its local paper is so important.
Local newspapers should absolutely hold local government accountable. That is the essence of what they do, and these days, local journalism is more important than ever. But with all due respect to Mark, I do not agree that it is necessary to be adversarial to hold entities accountable. Journalism does well when it fosters productive relationships with the subjects it covers. It is an ongoing, working relationship, a partnership. That doesn’t mean you water down government news, certainly not. But giving them a chance to comment in an article about a town issue goes a long way toward the relationship, even if the story is unflattering for the town. They know it’s coming, they get a chance to develop a response…. and they don’t hold the newspaper responsible for whatever backlash they get.
Would the PI at least be willing to try going through the town communications person? This is the standard process for many towns and cities, is it not? If it does seem to prevent communication with town officials, then I agree the process has failed, but shouldn’t we give them a chance and see if it works?
I hope you can all find a way to move forward with this. It’s an unfortunate situation, and I greatly respect the reporting the PI does.
To clarify, this was the second time the town manager had wielded his power to prevent us from communicating with paid town employees. This edict was “temporary” in that he wanted us to agree to only ask questions by email. Email has it uses, but it’s not a good way to conduct interviews, for obvious reasons. We do include the communications coordinator on our email requests to speak with someone. As for “adversarial,” perhaps I could have been clearer – it’s adversarial only in our role as holding public officials accountable. That’s when we have to ask tough questions that can create friction. There are other instances – a recent story on a major park restoration project, for example – in which it’s not that way. Also, the police chief just flat out refuses to talk with us. I’ve never had a conversation with him. And to end on an upbeat note, last night I had an hourlong conversation with the TM. He lifted the ban, without any restrictions. It was a phone call, and the truce has not been tested, but I am hopeful. I didn’t leave the Globe after 22 years take this job so I could battle with the TM. But when he reacted to stories he didn’t like by shutting us out, I felt compelled to tell readers.
One other point: We always offer officials the chance to comment. One of the stories that upset the TM included his quotes. He appeared fine with it until two day later after he faced a backlash on social media. It was only then that he complained.
Glitch with laptop software on original thoughts.
Keep on investigating Mark, transparency is the hallmark of Democracy!
My real name is Douglas H. Watts. I’m a news reporter now in Augusta, Maine but am from North Easton, Mass., where I covered many towns for the Associated Newspapers weekly chain in Rockland, Mass. in the 1980s and 1990s. In Maine, I have covered municipal govts. in Rumford, Oxford Hills, greater Portland, Augusta, Bangor and Brewer. Both Maine and Mass. have strong open meeting and open records laws and a solid record of legislative and judicial disdain for secretive town administrators. The Plymouth town manager’s position is entirely anomalous to my professional experience in Mass. and Maine. I’ve never heard of something like this before in New England, home of town meeting. Perhaps this is because the manager’s approach doesn’t work in any time frame. Stonewalling does not make stronger stone walls. This is especially egregious occurring in southeastern Mass., whose towns have the oldest direct democracy on Earth (my town of Easton will hold its 300th annual town meeting this spring; its first was in the spring of 1725, a half a century before the battle of Lexington & Concord). On a practical note, the Plymouth town manager’s position creates a perfect defense for a reporter to use the open records law without having to pay anything for copies etc. since the town manager has refused to make available a simpler and more direct method of acquiring the information sought (ie. verbally or over the phone).