Does Dan McClelland’s Tupper Lake Free Press cross the line?
This morning NCPR aired my interview with Dan McClelland, the sometimes controversial editor of the Tupper Lake Free Press.
McClelland is an unabashed economic-development booster, who has spared no ink in pushing for support of the Adirondack Club and Resort.
The veteran publisher — he’s owned the paper since the 1970s — told me that he thinks he’s generally fair, but he acknowledged that advocacy is his main purpose.
“I’ve never considered myself first a journalist,” McClelland said. “I consider myself a community promoter, a community leader. I’ve tried to do things that I thought in my humble opinion would be the best for Tupper Lake. I’m not reluctant to editorialize on what I believe in and I think my record speaks for itself. I’ve championed good things.”
Some critics, such as environmental advocate David Gibson, think McClelland crosses the line, denying his readers key information. This from an essay he wrote in the Adirondack Almanack.
Dan McClelland unabashedly and uncritically shouts loudly for the ACR, shouts down anybody with concerns, and not just on the editorial pages. Would that the Free Press more broadly represent the community it serves and be reasonably impartial, knowing how many in town may badly want the ski area redeveloped, but who may be skeptical about ACR claims.
Jessica Collier took up the debate last week in her blog in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
Much has been made over the years about media bias in reporting on the ACR. We’ve regularly seen people try to discredit reports of potential issues with the project, as well as potential benefits of the project, with, “Oh, he’s just an ACR cheerleader,” or, “Oh, he’s just a tree-hugger.”
To sample some of McClelland’s coverage, in particular, you can go here to his blog (scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the Adirondack Club and Resort sections).
So what do you think? Can a newspaper still fulfill its function as watchdog and objective observer while also pushing hard for a project like the Big Tupper resort?
Is Tupper Lake at a point where it needs cheerleaders more than watchdogs? And what do you think of the journalistic treatment and coverage of the ACR issue overall, including here at NCPR?
This is sensitive terrain, so as always, please keep it civil. No name calling, no ad hominen stuff.
I find the folks in Tupper Lake to be very friendly. And I say that as a kid who grew up in Saranac Lake where such a statement is considered treason! I am an “outsider” now and they are nice to me. Maybe some people just have trouble relating.
“Journalism is an art, not a science. As Will points out there is a wide variety of legitimate approaches.”
Brian, this probably true but I think it is getting more artsy than it should be these days. I see “journalists” using their “art” skills to sway readers more like I would expect from a novel than a newspaper.
Curmudgeons indeed. John and Pete should get together and start an outlet with only SERIOUS NEWS written by professional journalists.
The Adirondack Almanack is great, but largely because it is filled with the type of fluff I prefer to consume – natural history, local lore, reviews of watering holes and head nets, etc. Anything that resembles SERIOUS NEWS is usually written by advocates for this or that who only tell their side of the story, which leads to some lively debates in the comments section. It’s a good formula! I’d hate it if it turned into a place for nothing but SERIOUS NEWS.
Sometimes all you have to do is ask the questions and someone thinks you have taken a side. A good example is this blog where Brian raises the question and some seem to assume that Brian feels that Dan has crossed the line just because he asked the question. I don’t read anywhere in the blog where Brain has said that Dan crossed any line but people have responded as if he did.
I am a proud curmudgeon.
Will is right to point out that his paper tries to offer everything to all people. That is exactly what’s wrong with newspaper journalism today.
If the Post-Star wants to compete in the foodie video market, good for them; by all means write about local food issues, but treat your readers with intelligence and respect and you might find you have more of them.
The spaghetti video was both a) poorly made from a production standpoint, and b) suggests we need a lesson in cooking pasta but then offered the advice to “follow the manufacturer’s instructions”.
It’s a perfect parallel to the newspaper industry in general – provide mostly fluff content that amounts to a large amount of telling readers to just follow the instructions of political leaders, the prison-industrial complex, or corporations.
The Post-Star crime reports are another good example – not once, ever, have I read the opinion of the person charged with the crime as to whether they are guilty, whether the charge is just, or whether the law is just. The Post Star simply reports as fact what the police tell them and then call it local journalism.
Of course these concerns, as we’ve learned here from Will Doolittle, are not a requirement for a newspaper. Will tells us that “a publisher can run his or her own newspaper as he or she chooses.” In other words, our local newspaper has no responsibility to the community it serves – the point I’ve been trying to make for several years about the Post Star’s editorial choices. One important reason, I believe, newspapers are in such decline.
It should be no surprise that the Post Star runs crime reports as if the person has been convicted already, and that it allows obviously biased commentators to serve as ‘journalists’ for reporting on the APA, environmental conservation, and the Forest Preserve. Others would point to the education reporting, youth drinking, DWI, the Madden Hotel, and any number of other pet ‘advocacy journalism’ projects from the Post Star – all approaches exactly like the one Dan McCelland has taken with the ACR project.
One final point – on this idea that a newspaper can do what it likes and people don’t have to buy it. The Post Star is the only daily newspaper in town. The Denton papers, which ship to about 80,000 mailboxes I believe, are paid for in part by the tax dollars through reduced postage (thanks failing USPS, and closed local post offices!) and the ‘public notice’ requirement. So we don’t have always have a choice, do we? So what Will’s comments are really saying is, take what we feed you, even if it’s badly made pasta.
And rockydog, climb out from your hiding place and show us your resume. I have 25 years experience in media from local crime and beat reporting to major primetime international documentaries. I’ll be glad to go head to head with you. Let’s see what you’ve got.
I want to make one clarification – when I wrote about crime reports, I’m talking about the blotter reports, which seem to me to be a kind of bread and butter of the Post Star.
Also, I should respond to solidago’s comment about serious news written by “advocates”. The Almanack has been an alternative voice, that’s the role we play. The advocates solidago is talking about, I think, are only a very small number of the 25 or so contributors to the Almanack. I believe the best way to understand our world is to let those experiencing it tell it like they see it – that’s something the traditional media has not really allowed, the gate keepers of opinion that they have been.
The Almanack is not a newspaper, it doesn’t claim the frequently cited (and I believe hypocritical) mantle of journalistic professionalism others do. Instead, the Almanack offers views from people with close personal (and often professional) connections to their subjects.
For example, I don’t look to understand the history or natural history of the Adirondacks by reading the paper – I look to people who have devoted their lives to the history and natural of the Adirondacks to provide their insights, then I bring my own understanding into play to decide if what I’ve read has some truth.
There are different types of “bias.” The worst type is deliberately deceitful and stems from a motivation that is contrary to the general well-being of society. That form of bias is evil and – I believe – actively practiced by a number of influential groups – beware! There are subtle forms of unintended “innocent” bias stemming from the nature of things – the news business is show business, for example (please – do not watch cable news!). Possessing a point of view is not bias in itself, it should be noted, and if someone expresses it as such, thoughtfully and without intent to deceive, they are not being evil.
There are some issues that a decent journalist should have no trouble covering without bias. Controversies in the Adirondacks are generally of this sort – some compromise must be reached between two or more conflicting Big Principles. The Big Principles are easily stated and understood. Most people know that they are all good principles, and will feel the conflict within themselves. A good journalist will simply convey the facts and logic involved in making a reasonable compromise among them, and stay away from the noisy “black or white” types. We can then mix in our own values – or to be more profound: our own working assumption about the purpose of life – and go from there.
This ordeal all started on April 22, 2011, at 3:50 am when I posted the first comment on Brian Manns big story in the Adirondack Explorer “Big plans, big doubts. http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/2011/04/21/big-plans-big-doubts/
I have accused Brian of “PROPOGANDA” , being misleading and partisan. I still stand by it. This is just a little more of it. If anyone knows what is really going on in this dispute it is myself, Brian Mann, George Earl, Jessica Collier, Kieth McKeever , and Dan McClelland. The only people that know most everything that is going on is Myself, Jessica, Kieth and Dan. Jessica is the only one that has not missed one day, I missed one, and Dan missed a couple with a reporter sitting in for him once. Brian showed up at the public meeting at the school when the public of almost 1000 people showed up and showed 99% support. Their was three known non supporters in the crowd, they were Dan Plumley, Dave Gibson, and Carole Richer. Brian showed up in the afternoon of June 7 and interviewed Don Dew about the ACR , and he interviewed Mayor Mickey Desmerias about abuse at Sunmount, and for the very short while that he was there he laid his electronic voice recorder on the speaker so that he can go home and listen to it and fabricate a story that he knows nothing about . The very next day, he was there in the morning, once again nearly the same as the day before, snagged one more interview from Jim LaValley, and left by lunch. Between the public hearing at the school and and his two partial days last week he has probably spent approximately 10 to 12 hours (Only 5 hours of the real hearings). Right now the total time of hearings totals 78 hours. Now who can you all believe? Stay tuned, much more accurate information on its way.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000612524792