Susan Ernest says that I didn't use the appropriate channels. Though I did not have a radio dial, I did seek permission from Geri Anthony to sit at the media table. She did not apprise me of any other procedure and therefore it cannot be said that I circumvented any policy. In fact, the policy of accommodating media has never been formal, but rather reflected the existing outlets that were available to the people for many years. Before the radio station was here, it was just the newspaper. An accommodation was made to include the radio station once it went on the air.
I emailed a number of questions to various city employees, including Gary Person, John Hehnke, Geri Anthony, Lori Borchert and County Clerk Beth Fiegenschuh. To the extent that any answers were provided, no answer was directed toward using open meetings request forms, save my final question to Jo Houser involving the growth of the number of sworn officers on the police department
To my knowledge, no change in policy surrounding the council preparation packets for media was per my request. I did ask a question as to whether or not prior council minutes could be archived on the city's website for research purposes (as is the case in cities such as Bellevue, Neb).
The accusation by KSID Radio General Manager Susan Ernest that I took the seat of a reporter presupposes the city had a seating chart for approved media outlets. There does not appear to be a prior policy on credientialling, and if there were one, it would have been in violation every time the sidneystagecoach.com was represented. According to Gary Person, the historical accommodation for media/press has always been for the radio station and the newspaper and the change from last city council meeting merely reflected the historical standard that had existed for years. He also said that the Mayor cleared the change of accommodation and as the person in charge of the running the meeting, was entitled to do so. If true, the change would not be a policy decision and I am wrong in my assertion. If that is the case, I will eat my words publicly.
The City Manager defined one official print media outlet using the definition the state provides for identifying publications that can publish legal notices. Radio stations have been required to have an FCC license which suffices the requirements for that venue. No current policy exists from which to define any blog or internet only publication as a bona fide news source, but that doesn't mean that they can't or don't attempt to cover the news, even if it contains opinion.
The question of media credentialing is an appropriate discussion for a public body to entertain. Sidney has had a number of active publications and some have come and gone or are at least dormant presently. There does not appear to have been a policy to credential various media in the past, though as Gary says, most localities have simply reflected the historical nature and availability of traditional news outlets in their accommodation. The City Manager and I disagree on whether the recent decision should rise to the level of public policy, or administrative levels.
If the choice should be a public policy decision, it should be given the same consideration as all other public policy discussion: chiefly in public. People such as Julie and Dave Young have rightly pointed out that public policy discussions, including the thought processes that formulate public policy should be discussed in the open. It is imperative that the affected parties are given an opportunity to discuss the impact the policy change would affect their ability to interact with the city government. Whether it is the City Manager's job description, a piece of capital equipment or even how the events of the city council are covered by the public, the process should be the same. Failing to hold the process constant would potentially be seen as a violation of the public trust. Even you don't like the affected person or organization, that cannot ever become a justification to look the other way when the open meetings act provisions are violated.
Newspapers (or more appropriately news sheets) have been around for more than 1900 years. Radio has been broadcast commercially for a little over one hundred years. Television has been around since the mid-1930s. The internet has been around for public use for about 20 years (although it was originally part of the US Dept of Defense years earlier). Blogging has been around for just a few years and gains in popularity every day with people expressing their opinion, self-publishing poetry, and news or commentary.
At each step in the evolution of technology, those who preceded the new technology fought against the inclusion of the new technologies and actively sought to brand them as upstarts, incompetent and unworthy to participate. In many cases the accusations have been true. Legitimate criticisms have been made at spelling and grammar on this site. Examples of grammatical errors and spoken errors can bs said of the traditional media as well. As I have said previously, they are typically oversight errors and should not negatively reflect on the mission or intent of those venues, any more than mine. With respect to the historical trend of how traditional media looks at the introduction of new media, newspapers and radio look at bloggers and other online providers the same way as newspapers looked at radio back in the day.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. The founders knew that the press in their time was newspapers. Technologies have evolved and there are a wider assortment of mediums from which to convey the message. The framer's intent was to protect those who sought to report on the activities of the government for the benefit of the governed as so fundamental that it could not be violated, even if the government disagreed with the statements being made (within limits of tort law) or public safety).
There were good papers in terms of grammar and style and there were papers who had constant opportunities to improve in those areas. Many papers started out as garage operations with little money, unpaid staff and a desire to cover what was going on around them, regardless of who cared to read. Circulations in the early days were limited to what you could hand write in a day's time or only certain events. As technology made it easier to mass distribute the message, barriers to entry into publishing also grew. It wasn't until the relatively recent past that desktop computers made it economically viable for the common man to re-enter the field of publishing.
There are papers who just reported the facts, and those who reported opinion with facts. Truth be told, most newspapers today report hard news (Facts) and soft news (human interest pieces or background or supporting information on related hard news). Most papers or other media outlets that failed back then as today, because they could not operate efficiently, or did not find a market large enough for their viewpoint.
The founders felt that the market, meaning you, were savvy enough to make the determination which outlet would provide your needs. Since I am not yet doing this for profit, I intend to continue to cover the events I feel warrant your attention. I will continue to solicit readership and constructive criticism and report factual news and opinion with an emphasis on creating a more pronounced barrier between the two.
As for the subject on media accommodation, this will be my last report or comment on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment