Media: Boycotting GateHouse, fighting back with blogging
The folks who are boycotting the Norwich (Connecticut) Bulletin are fighting back by offering news via hyper-local citizen journalism. The complaints? Censored and poorly edited letters to the editor, fact errors, ignoring legitimate news, boosterism in editorials.
My two cents: Some of the complaints seem to be of a partisan nature, which is fine. But you can’t offer an alternative to your hometown newspaper unless you also can produce the occasional piece of journalism of yoru own, beyond just commenting on the stuff you don’t like about the hometown newspaper. And THAT takes a bit more effort that sitting down at the keyboard once or twice a day.
Good luck, though.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Thought you might find this interesting …
Less than a week after the Wareham Courier began promoting a “boycott†against advertisers and distributors of the Observer on its web site, it’s already unraveling as the motives behind it have risen to the surface.
For the Courier, the motivation is clear. Days after the “boycott†began the parent company of the Courier – Gatehouse Media – announced a $29 million first-quarter loss. Its stock value has dropped 75 percent over the past year. On Monday, Standard & Poor’s placed a “negative†watch on the company’s credit rating (which was recently downgraded to the level of junk bonds). The “negative†watch means Standard & Poor’s has serious concerns about the company’s rising debt and its ability to pay off creditors.
That does not bode well for the future of the Courier. The advertising climate in Massachusetts has been particularly challenging for the monopolistic media company. The downward turn in the state and national economy, coupled with Gatehouse Media’s philosophy of purchasing every community paper possible, has stretched the company nearly to the breaking point. The only apparent way out of the maze is to slash operating costs as quickly as possible.
That means every Gate House Media publication in Massachusetts is now under serious scrutiny by the parent company. That includes the Courier.
Over the past 18 months, the Courier’s local advertising has plummeted. Not only has the Observer siphoned off more than $10,000 in revenue each month, “The Gateway,†published weekly by the Standard Times, has taken a financial toll as well.
Of course, advertising success is tied to circulation. In Gatehouse Media’s on-line advertising brochure, it claims the Courier has a weekly circulation of more than 5,000 readers. But if you read the fine print, that figure is based on a 2005 audit, when the Courier was the only weekly newspaper in Wareham. That was before the Observer and The Gateway came to town. The Courier’s actual 2008 circulation figures remain a tightly guarded secret.
Another factor in this “boycott†is the recent shift in legal advertising. For years the Courier dominated the local legal advertising market. They printed Town Meeting warrants at a hefty little price. They’ve lost a lot of that revenue this year because we simply under-bid them. They’ve taken another hit to their bottom line because of that.
There’s little wonder the Courier would now shamelessly promote an advertising boycott against a competitor. Their local advertisers have left in droves. If the Courier is to survive, it has to convince the parent company it can turn things around quickly.
This, apparently, is their solution, and they are willing to violate their own stated on-line blog rules to achieve their goal.
Of course, the political partisans in town needed little encouragement to hop on board. A group consisting mainly of a dozen or so former town officials, as well as their friends and families, are trying to pressure advertisers and distributors into cutting ties with the Observer, basically to force local businesses into spending more money to advertise with the Courier instead. Have you ever wondered why the Courier has always refused to criticize these individuals? Well, the answer should be clear by now. One hand always washes the other.
Journalists are taught to consider the timing of when events occur. The Observer hasn’t dramatically altered its philosophy over the past 18 months. We’re doing the same thing we’ve always done – we try to hold people accountable for their words and actions. So why was this “boycott†launched now when it could have occurred at any point previously?
The timing is perfect for the political partisans. After getting soundly crushed for the second straight year at the voting booth, they are trying to launch a recall effort to regain control of the board of selectmen. They don’t care that the voice of democracy has already spoken. They are determined to get back into power, and they consider the Observer a threat in their quest.
They’ve all marked June 15 on their calendars. That’s the day a Federal Court judge is expected to rule whether the former board of library trustees has evidence to support their civil rights lawsuit again the town of Wareham and the board of selectmen. If the judge throws out the case, as several legal experts have predicted, the former trustees will be forced to turn over their financial documents to the town treasurer, something they have fought tooth and nail against for nearly a year. If, as selectmen have stated in their counter-suit, the former trustees are guilty of conversion of public funds, not too many Wareham residents are likely to support a recall. The political partisans behind this boycott don’t want the Observer around to cover any of that.
As we said last week, we don’t support any organized retribution against the Courier or its advertisers. Every individual in Wareham has the right to read whatever newspaper they please and to shop at any business they choose. But the political partisans and the Courier stepped into the realm of censorship when they launched a campaign to frighten distributors from carrying the Observer. That’s plain and simple censorship. They are trying to tell you what you can read and what you can’t.
No advertiser or distributor has buckled to them so far. We should all be very proud of that.
The political partisans have already proven they are willing to lie to protect their own interest. One of them posted a blog on the Courier web site that said the Observer shouldn’t cover library issues because we sued one of the former library trustees. That’s nonsense. We’ve never sued anyone. We did take a no-trespass order out against the husband of a former trustee after he continually harassed us. Does that mean we shouldn’t continue covering the story because we had to protect ourselves from harassment while initially covering the story? That’s the twisted logic we constantly face from these people.
It’s gotten so ugly now it almost defies belief. One of these folks suggested boycotting a charitable function at a restaurant because it carries the Observer. Another advocated the theft of our papers. One blogger said the Observer should be banned from all government buildings. Does that mean the paper would be confiscated by the thought police if somebody is carrying one at Town Hall or the Wareham Free Library?
Has Wareham really come to this? Have these former town officials and their supporters become so bitter and spiteful that they are now willing to play Gestapo against anyone who advocates freedom of speech? Has their thirst for vengeance and power truly blinded them from seeing the fascists they’re slowly becoming?
My god, it really is frightening.
Interesting. Can you cite and link to the original article?