Great talking with Gerard Cunningham on his podcast, “Freelance Forum,” about the future of local journalism and my book-in-progress with Ellen Clegg, “What Works in Community News.” Please give it a listen.
Author: Dan Kennedy
The ACLU offers guidelines for how public officials can still maintain order
Despite a ruling by the state’s highest court that the Southborough select board violated a woman’s free speech rights by shutting her down after she referred to a member as a “Hitler,” local governmental bodies can still enforce rules of decorum — as long as it’s done in a content-neutral manner.
The ACLU of Massachusetts has sent a letter to the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association and the Massachusetts Association of School Committees offering guidance on how to proceed following the Supreme Judicial Court’s Barron v. Kolenda decision, which found that a local bylaw requiring “civility” violated both the state constitution and the First Amendment.
“We hope to work together to maintain peaceable and orderly meetings and to preserve constitutionally protected input by the public,” according to letter, signed by state ACLU executive director Carol Rose and senior and managing attorney Ruth A. Bourquin. The letter adds: “We understand that there is much to digest in the Court’s opinion and that some public bodies fear the decision will lead to disorderly public meetings. This fear is not warranted.”
The heart of the letter are 10 specific guidelines that local officials can follow in keeping unruly members of the public from getting out of hand. Some of them were outlined by the SJC itself — time limits for public comment and for individual speakers as well as rules that forbid speakers from interrupting each other. Some go beyond that. For instance, the letter says that rules preventing anyone from speaking unless recognized by the chair are lawful, as are limits to topics that are within the jurisdiction of the public body. Needless to say, anyone who threatens violence can be ordered to leave.
As someone who used to spend a considerable amount of time reporting on such meetings back, I think the ACLU’s guidelines contain a lot of common sense, and I hope local officials will take them to heart. Probably nothing could have prevented Louise Barron from calling Southborough select board member a “Hitler.” She was, after all, protesting what she regarded as the board’s violations of the state’s open meeting law, which is a legitimate topic. But if the board had rules in place stating that she couldn’t speak until recognized and was limited to five minutes, the damage would have been contained.
None of this should minimize how vile Barron’s comments were. Her behavior that night was loathsome. Frankly, even though the SJC made the correct decision, Barron should have apologized rather than filing a lawsuit to defend her own disgusting behavior.
The Boston Phoenix, 10 years on
Ten years ago this week, The Boston Phoenix published its final edition. I was on staff from 1991 to 2005 and continued as a contributor until the end. Its loss was a devastating blow to the city, to those of us who worked there, and especially to those who were suddenly left without jobs. Boston is a lesser place without the Phoenix.
Gannett seeks correction to Nieman Lab article
Last Friday I disputed Joshua Benton’s reporting in Nieman Lab on the extent of the decline in paid circulation at USA Today, owned by Gannett. Now Gannett has asked for a correction. I’m sure Gannett would take issue with my reporting as well; as I noted in an update, both Benton and I may have been led astray by the lack of transparency with which Gannett reports its numbers.
In fact, there’s a statement within Gannett’s request for a correction that is just pure gold regarding the circulation figures that it reports to the Alliance for Audited Media: “AAM data is used to help advertisers understand publisher reach in specific markets, not to infer readership or paid circulation.” Huh?
Surely it is news to many of us that terms such as “print readership,” “print and digital readership” and “circulation” ought to be defined by something other than their plain English meaning. In my earlier post, I concluded that it is impossible to know what Gannett’s publicly reported numbers mean. This only confirms it.
The SJC’s ruling on civility was correct, but it’s unlikely to be the last word
The grotesque incivility of the age has caught up with local government. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that a bylaw in the town of Southborough that requires members of the public to act with “civility” when addressing officials was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution as well as the First Amendment.
It’s hard to disagree. In fact, three years ago I gave a New England Muzzle Award to the president of the town council in Exeter, Rhode Island, for sponsoring a rule requiring “decorum” from people who appear at public meetings. As I wrote for GBH News, “It should be possible to exercise some control over a public meeting without an ordinance that tramples on the First Amendment.”
I haven’t changed my mind, and I think the SJC did the right thing in ruling against Southborough officials. But wow. The unanimous decision, Barron v. Kolenda, was written by Justice Scott Kafker. Adam Gaffin, who covered the case for Universal Hub, reports:
At issue was a 2018 meeting of the town Select Board when the chairman cut short the regular public-comment period after a local gadfly, upset about both a potential tax increase and a state determination that the board had earlier and repeatedly violated the state Open Meeting Law, called the chairman “a Hitler” twice (to which he replied she was “disgusting”). He cited the town’s “civility” bylaw, which requires statements to be “respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal, or slanderous remarks” and which bars shouting and “inappropriate language.”
The SJC ruled that the select board had engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” on the grounds that favorable comments about the board would not have similarly been shot down. The court said that the wording of the bylaw goes well beyond the state constitution, which says only that the right of free speech must be exercised in “an orderly and peaceful manner.”
I could go on, but Adam’s got the story well covered, including lengthy excerpts from the SJC’s ruling. Jennifer Smith has a bit more at CommonWealth Magazine about what actually went down at the select board meeting. According to Smith, the resident in question, Louise Barron, accused town officials of “spending like drunken sailors” and held a sign; on one side was written “Stop Spending,” and the other proclaimed “Stop Breaking Open Meeting Law.” Smith continues:
Board member Daniel L. Kolenda interrupted, saying she [Barron] was starting to “slander” the town officials. He announced the public comment period would close and the board would go into recess, at which point an outraged Barron said, “Look, you need to stop being a Hitler.”
Kolenda ordered the hearing ended and cameras turned off, the SJC said. He began shouting at Barron that she was “disgusting” and he would have her “escorted out” of the meeting if she did not leave. She left and later brought suit, appealing to the high court after a lower court dismissed her claims.
The select board may control public participation to some extent, the SJC notes, by adopting “time, place, and manner restrictions” concerning the length of the public comment session, time limits for each speaker, and rules against disrupting other speakers. Because such TPM restrictions, as they are called, are viewpoint-neutral, they do not raise any constitutional issues. The Southborough ordinance, though, went well beyond that. Justice Kafker’s decision ends with this:
At a public comment session in a meeting of the board, a resident of the town thus clearly has the right to accurately complain about violations of law committed by town officials and object to other town actions, including its spending practices, and to express her views vehemently, critically, and personally to the government officials involved…. When a government official responds to a resident’s exercise of those rights by accusing her of slandering the board, screaming at her, and threatening her physical removal, it should be clear to him that his conduct is unlawful.
As I said, the SJC clearly got it right. Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement: “This is a major victory for free speech and participatory democracy.” But when I was regularly covering city council, select board and school committee meetings back in the 1980s, it would have been unthinkable for a member of the public to refer to a public official as “Hitler” — and, yes, there were obnoxious, uninformed members of the public back then, too. But there was also a certain level of propriety that everyone adhered to. It would have been inconceivable for anyone to invoke Hitler.
We are in a different world, now. The SJC ruling harks back to an earlier age, invoking both John Adams, for whom its gathering place is named, and Samuel Adams. Barron v. Kolenda is unlikely to be the last word on how members of the public may or may not behave in governmental forums, either in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Barney Frank, the unrepentant $2.4 million crypto bro
Give us a break, Barney. Meanwhile, I hope and expect The Boston Globe is going to dig deeply into what Frank was doing at Signature. From The New York Times:
Mr. Frank, who received more than $2.4 million in cash and stock from Signature during his seven-plus years on the board, left the job on Sunday as regulators dissolved the board. He said on Monday that the bank was the victim of overzealous regulators. “We were the ones who they shot to encourage others to stay away from crypto,” he said.
GBH News covers the revival of community journalism
Nice doubleheader on the revival of local news in Greater Boston from my friends at GBH News. Jeremy Siegel reports on three startups in the suburbs — the Burlington Buzz, the Framingham Source and the Marblehead Beacon — as well as Boston Black News, a radio outlet. (Jeremy interviewed me as well.)
Tori Bedford has a piece on the ownership transition at The Bay State Banner, which has been covering the Black community since 1965 and whose new executives have some ambitious expansion plans.
Gannett is wrecking its papers, but USA Today’s circulation is not down 93%
Update: Trying to write about Gannett and accurate numbers simply isn’t possible. One reader notes that USA Today didn’t start offering digital subscriptions until 2021 — and yet Gannett was reporting paid (or unpaid?) digital for USA Today to the Alliance for Audited Media starting at least in 2012. So how is that possible? Another reader hints at an answer — if you subscribe to any Gannett paper, or maybe just any Gannett daily, you get a subscription to USA Today included. Or you used to. Maybe that changed after USA Today’s paywall went up.
So it could be that USA Today’s paid circulation was far lower in 2018 than what it reported to AAN — not the 2,632,392 that Joshua Benton used, and not the 1,584,462 that I used. Instead, maybe what we ought to look at is the 631,076 print figure. And since USA Today seemed to be selling an e-paper option as well, that would bring total paid circulation in 2018 to 654,743.
Now let’s go for an apples-to-apples comparison. The 156,453 that Benton reported for USA Today’s current paid circulation is the total of print and replica. That’s a nausea-inducing decline of 76% over the four-year period, but that’s still not nearly as much as the 93% Benton’s numbers showed. It’s also a lot worse than the 33% estimate that I offered.
But wait! USA Today has been selling paid nonreplica digital subscriptions for nearly two years now. How many? As I explained, Gannett stopped reporting that figure a while back, so we don’t know. Surely it’s not the “zero” that Gannett claims on its most recent report to AAN. (It should at least be one; I mean, I bought one.) We simply can’t know how by how much USA Today’s paid circulation has declined without knowing that important figure, or whether subscriptions to other Gannett papers are included. Without access to Gannett’s internal numbers and insight into exactly what they mean, it’s an unsolveable mess.
Earlier: Did USA Today’s paid circulation drop by 93% between 2018 and 2022? The near-certain answer to that is no — yet that’s the astonishing claim that Joshua Benton makes at Nieman Lab. I knew there was a problem with his numbers as soon as I saw them, mainly because I recently put some effort into figuring out how USA Today’s corporate owner, Gannett, compiles its circulation figures. So let’s dive in.
Benton reports that USA Today’s paid circulation in the third quarter of 2018 was 2,632,392 and then fell in the third quarter of 2022 to just 180,381. That’s a staggering loss of 2,452,011, or 93%. But as I’ll show, much of that apparent loss is the result of a change in the way Gannett reports its paid digital circulation to the Alliance for Audited Media.
What I was able to dig up at AAN uses slightly different time periods compared to what Benton found. I’m going to use all of 2018 rather than the third quarter because the latter wasn’t available when I looked. But it should tell the same tale. It shows that the average weekday circulation that year was 2,708,983, which is in the same ballpark as what Benton reported. A lot of that, though, consists of “affiliated publications” such as Local/Life and Sports Weekly. The circulation of the paper alone was 1,584,462. Now, pay attention to the following breakdown, because it will prove important:
- Print: 631,076
- Digital replica: 23,667
- Digital nonreplica: 929,719
“Digital nonreplica” is the term for digital subscribers who access the website but don’t bother with the e-paper. As you can see, it comprises the vast majority of digital subscriptions — and, at some point, Gannett simply stopped reporting that number.
Now let’s look at the third quarter of 2022. Paid weekday circulation is reported as 180,381 at the top level at ANN (the figure Benton used) or 156,453, which is the number that pops up at AAN if you click through. That latter number comprises 132,176 for print and 24,277 for digital replica (the 156,453 figure, which I didn’t immediately grasp) — and zero for digital nonreplica. So, yes, print circulation is down by a stunning 79%, which may have more than a little to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. USA Today, after all, was a staple of hotels for many years. But digital replica is up slightly. And digital nonreplica simply isn’t being reported.
I encountered this recently when I was analyzing some numbers for Gannett’s Burlington Free Press in northern Vermont. I discovered that, not only had Gannett stopped reporting digital nonreplica, but that — according to confidential internal reports I had obtained — it was underreporting its total paid digital circulation by about half.
Gannett is trying very hard to sell digital subscriptions for its incredible shrinking news outlets. Keep in mind, too, that people don’t buy subscriptions to the replica edition — they buy digital subscriptions, period, and the papers themselves report how many readers are accessing the e-paper so they can tout that number to advertisers. (AAN recently explained all of this to me. As you’ll see, it’s pretty complicated.) In other word, Gannett is telling AAN how many subscribers are accessing the e-paper, but they’re keeping total digital circulation to themselves.
Now, I’m going to take a leap here and assume that USA Today’s total digital circulation was the same in 2022 as it was in 2018, or maybe even a little higher. I base that on several factors: digital circulation was up at all of Gannett’s New England properties, according to the confidential report I mentioned; USA Today’s digital replica circulation was up slightly; and Gannett has been pushing digital subscriptions hard. I even signed up for one, and it was a great deal — with a little fiddling, I can use it to access every Gannett paper in the country. Of course, there’s little in them.
With all that in mind, I came up with a guesstimate that USA Today’s paid circulation in the third quarter of 2022 was about 1,056,000. I’m building in a nonreplica figure of 900,000, a decline (as I said, unlikely) compared to 2018. Put all that together, and using a 2018 circulation figure of 1,584,462 (that is, not counting “affiliated publications”), and I come up with a drop of 33% between 2018 and 2022. Now, that’s still a lot — but it’s also in line with a lot of non-Gannett papers that Benton used for comparison.
Everything else Benton says about Gannett is right on target. The company has decimated its papers, is closing them and selling them off, and generally appears to be squeezing out the last few drops of revenue they can muster before people like top executive Mike Reed, the $7.7 million man, walk away. It’s an outrage, and we really can’t call attention to it often enough.
But the crazy circulation drop at USA Today and other Gannett dailies is more a function of Gannett’s decision to stop reporting paid digital nonreplica subscriptions than it is an actual measurement of readers fleeing for the exits.
Ralph Nader helped launch a newspaper. Now he’s accused of failing to pay for it.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader was hailed as a hero in late February when it was reported that he would launch a nonprofit newspaper in Winsted, Connecticut, where he was born. The new paper, the Winsted Citizen, hired veteran journalist Andy Thibault as its publisher and editor, and it looked like nothing but bright skies on the horizon. The paper is the town’s first since the Winsted Journal shut down in 2017, although the community is covered by the daily Republican-American of nearby Waterbury.
But the Citizen stumbled right of the gate — and the reason is that Nader apparently didn’t come through with the money he had promised. According to Bob Sillick of the trade publication Editor & Publisher and Daniel Figueroa IV of Hearst CT, Nader failed to provide the $22,500 that Thibault said he had pledged to fund the Citizen’s second edition, instead offering an $8,000 loan. That offer was turned down. The Citizen is having trouble meeting payroll, and it sounds like the future of the Citizen is in doubt, although Thibault says he and his staff are pushing ahead.
If there’s another side to the story, we’re not hearing it from Nader. Both Sillick and Figueroa say that Nader has not responded to their attempts to obtain comment. Meanwhile, the print-centric newspaper, which costs about $30,000 per issue to produce, is going to pivot to digital-first, although print will continue to be offered. The website will be paywalled. Thibault has posted the statement he gave to Hearst on the Citizen’s blog, and I reproduce it here in full:
It is true that we put out the second edition without promised funding and that we owe many contributors pay for services rendered. With ongoing support from subscribers, advertisers and donors, we absolutely will honor all our obligations.
I am so proud to work with all our staff individually and collectively. These are real people running on broken glass through the desert sand to get the job done. They are young and old, some approaching the end or their careers and some just starting It is my duty as editor and publisher to serve our readers and staff. As long as I breathe, I will, without fear or favor.
Our leadership team and staff continue to work eight days a week. On Monday we will conduct a thorough review of all financial data. Story conferences have cranked up already for the April edition. Deadlines [have been set].
Initially, Ralph told me he only wanted to do a pilot edition, then sit back for six or eight weeks to get feedback. I told him that would not work, we need a Second Act and funding for six months at double the rate for the first edition. Managing Editor Melanie Ollett and Advertising / Circulation Director presented detailed budgets by request and they were ignored.
These are indisputable facts and I would submit to a state police certified polygraph exam.
During a conversation with Ralph and his legal counsel I agreed to produce 25% of the revenue needed for the second edition and was promised funding on that basis.
This has not happened. Instead Ralph switched gears and, through his counsel offered a loan of $8,000 that has not shown up … We are deeply grateful for the support of the community.
Andy Thibault
There may be less to the Florida blogger bill than meets the eye
I want to question the prevailing wisdom about the so-called Florida blogger bill, which would require independent paid bloggers to register with the state if they write about top elected officials, including Gov. Ron DeSantis. The proposal has been described as an outrage against the First Amendment, with Noah Lanard of Mother Jones going so far as to say that the bill was inspired by Hungary’s right-wing authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán.
But what if there’s something else going on here? I was struck by this article in the Tampa Bay Times in which the sponsor of the measure, Republican state Sen. Jason Brodeur, compared bloggers to “lobbyists.” The bill would require bloggers to disclose who paid them for posts about elected officials and how much they received. Failure to comply could result in fines of $25 for every day they’re late, up to $2,500.
Brodeur would exempt bloggers for news organizations, and that may help explain his intent. Kirby Wilson, who interviewed Brodeur for the Times via text message, wrote that when he asked if the bill could cover journalists who write for digital-only outlets, Brodeur replied: “If they’re paid to advocate a position on behalf of a special interest, yes.”
It seems to me that what’s going on here is that Brodeur wants to require bloggers to disclose where they’re getting their money from if they’re being paid by political campaigns and other politically oriented organizations. This is not remarkable. By law, political campaigns and lobbyists must disclose their spending. A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission was threatening to go after food bloggers who were accepting freebies to write nice things without any disclosure.
Of note is that Jacob Ogles of the website Florida Politics forthrightly portrays Brodeur as targeting “pay-to-play blog posts” and quotes Brodeur as saying: “Paid bloggers are lobbyists who write instead of talk. They both are professional electioneers. If lobbyists have to register and report, why shouldn’t paid bloggers?”
Now, let’s be clear: Brodeur is no friend of the press. He recently filed a bill that would weaken libel protections for news organizations. And the blogger bill is apparently something of a mess, with Wilson observing that the actual language contains nothing that would protect independent bloggers who aren’t lobbying on behalf of a special interest. Brodeur hasn’t even been able to find a sponsor in the Florida House.
But there may be less here than meets the eye. After all, there’s a considerable distance between requiring lobbyists who blog to disclose their political activities and the repressive tactics of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.