About Town

The #menews op-ed, and my response

Jeff Inglis — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:18:00 GMT

Some of you might remember my long post about the #menews forum a couple weeks back. Well, they're still at it. In my inbox this morning comes moderator Mike Cuzzi, with an opinion piece jointed penned by him, Maine State Chamber of Commerce head Dana Connors, and Tony Ronzio, the Sun Journal's new media director - one of the more clued-in folks on the panel. (BTW, Tony, I've had a website since 1991. Can we stop calling it "new media" soon?)

They asked if I'd consider printing it, so I took a look. And I've agreed to publish it here - with my responses in line. And no, this doesn't stop me from shaking my head at Maine's daily newspaper situation.

Anyway, here's the op-ed, with my responses. I'm in bold.

The Future of Maine's Newspapers

Despite National Trends, Maine's Newspapers Remain Strong

The national narrative about newspapers is expressed in two words: they're dying.

Let's be clearer: the national narrative about daily newspapers is that they're dying. Weekly newspapers, including alternatives, have hit a rough economic spot just like everyone else, but are doing just fine.

Over the past few years, newspaper circulations have declined, staffs have been cut back, budgets have tightened with the shrinking economy and the explosive growth of digital and social media, and some publications even closed their doors.

Yep, such as the Portland Press Herald, the Portland Press Herald, and, well, the Portland Press Herald's York County bureau. And Village Soup Media, of course. Or were you going to tell me Maine's an exception to this stuff?

However, the national narrative is largely driven by the experiences of big, publicly traded newspaper chains, like Gannett or McClatchy, or the big institutions, like the New York Times or Washington Post. Neither represents the real story of newspapering in Maine.

Except, of course, for the obvious and well-known facts that Maine daily newspapers have lost circulation big-time, shrunk their staffs significantly, tightened budgets, and closed their doors.

First, most daily and weekly publications are owned by Maine individuals and families who live and work in this state. While committed to turning a profit, these local owners read their newspapers like broadsheets -- as opposed to spreadsheets.

And as we know, people who live locally are by definition better than people who live far away. This is why, as we all know, Maine has the best telecommunications companies, the most innovative universities, the world's best teachers, the most talented artists, and more Nobel Prize winners than anywhere else on the... (Fine, we have some of these - but Maine-centric exceptionalism is hollow rhetoric that substitutes boosterism for substance.)

This also attempts to get away with lumping the struggling all-things-to-all-people daily newspapers in with the successful niche-publication weeklies. Don't let this sort of silliness cloud your vision. Daily papers print the Internet - after it's been posted online. Weeklies print the news first, with insight and context.

Second, there is cautious optimism in Maine that its newspapers are rising again, albeit slowly, after some difficult years.

Who is optimistic about that? Is it anyone outside the newspapers in question?

Maine's papers are making money, hiring newsroom and other staff, either holding or growing circulation, and reaching more people than ever before with their print and online offerings.

If the dailies are making money, it must just not be enough for their local owners, who continue to seek greater profits by cutting back on content while raising cover prices. They're not "holding" circulation, though by some measures they are slowing the losses. But it's important to note that how circulation is measured has changed, allowing greater flexibility in determining what counts - specifically so that the newspaper industry can make its numbers look better, in an attempt to regain control of the narrative of the obvious.

And if they're claiming to reach "more people than ever before," make sure you get them to show you how they know that they're not reaching the same exact people in print, online, and mobile devices - and just counting them multiple times. What's that? Oh right - they can't show you that. Because they don't know that. Also, make sure they show you how many of those online readers are people who would gladly pay to read what's there. Oh yeah, they can't show you that, either, because most of them wouldn't.

That greater reach hasn't necessarily translated into greater profitability, but even so, Maine's newspapers' balance sheets as a whole are trending in the right direction.

Just cut the word "necessarily" from the sentence. And if the balance sheets are looking up, it's not because there's more revenue. It's because costs are lower. That means fewer workers, at lower salaries, less employee benefits, and smaller circulation (accompanied by smaller print runs).

Third, Maine's newspapers are now more competitive than ever before, battling for the best reporters and investing in new, more robust technologies to deliver content to ever more sophisticated consumers.

The dailies are indeed more competitive with each other. Perhaps that's because they're engaged in a race for survival. Can this state really support three major dailies and three smaller ones? They are as uncompetitive as ever with weeklies, who trounce them time and again, week in and week out, in print and online.

What are these "new, more robust technologies" they're talking about? Better blog engines? Slightly faster websites that might load faster in a state whose overall broadband speed is terrible?

The existential crisis of Maine and national newspapers is reshaping their mission and invigorating them to rapidly adapt to new challenges. This strong competition and renewed sense of purpose promises to keep Maine's newspapers vibrant.

Innovation, competition, and reinvigoration do not directly and automatically equal success. Some innovations fail. Some businesses lose competitions, and renewed energy can be wasted by mismanagement, or by outside economic factors.

So what does the future hold for Maine's newspapers? The precise answer is unknown. What is known, however, is the future exists -- despite gloomy predictions to the contrary.

Ah, that's some refreshing honesty. Despite the original interpretation of Mayan predictions that the world would end in 2012, the new interpretation is that the Mayans expected the world to continue for many more years. "The future exists" is the banner of promise that is held high by people whose entire jobs have for decades, even down to today, been obsessed with telling you what happened yesterday. Their newspapers certainly don't reflect the idea that the future exists - and only rarely even address the present. They just talk about what happened in the past.

So daily newspapers are discovering that "the future exists." This is important, but continues to underline the idea that daily newspapers and their leaders are profoundly detached from the rest of the world, in which we're constantly worrying about the future and talking about what's next, and only rarely deeply interested in what happened in the past. (And yes, I'm a trained historian, and I recognize the distinction between my interests and those of regular people. Daily newspaper workers have continued to think they are regular people - and they're not.)

Recently, in Portland, we hosted a panel discussion about the future of Maine's newspapers. The participants came to some common conclusions, although with divergent opinions about how to get there.

What? I was there, and didn't hear any common conclusions - besides "We don't know what's happened, but the future exists."

First, print editions are not going away anytime soon. Plenty of fans still exist for printed newspapers, particularly in Maine, which supports dozens of excellent weekly papers that cover every inch of the state.

And the fact that weekly newspapers are successful has what bearing, exactly, on daily newspapers, which are an entirely different animal?

Going forward, though, print will become just one vehicle for readers, as opposed to the dominant one. Digital journalism and advertising will eventually supplant printed papers for primacy, but never replace them entirely.

This is already true - and not just something we'll see "going forward." Print is just one vehicle - for a decreasing number of readers. Perhaps printed papers won't ever entirely disappear. Some people still put music out on cassette and vinyl, after all.

This will happen not as readers' news consumption changes, but as advertisers optimize how they pursue and attract customers online. For decades, newspapers have aided businesses in the quest for customers; as the digital age dawns, newspapers still remain ideally suited to provide this service for years to come.

Here's another bright spot of honesty: This transition won't happen because of what daily newspapers think their readers want. (Reason: They have no idea what their readers want.) Rather, it'll happen because of what advertisers demand, and what makes the numbers work. Sounds a lot like what's already at work killing daily papers.

And what it really says is that Maine's daily newspapers will not be leaders in innovation, but rather will follow the innovations of others, who will determine the future of advertising. Being a follower - especially when calling it innovation - is always a good way to save your failing business, right?

Moreover, newspaper advertising departments are transforming themselves into full-service digital providers to businesses, offering value-added services such as website design in response to businesses' growing digital needs.

Ah yes, website design - so glad that's a new offering of Maine's newspapers. Have they heard of Blogger, Tumblr, Google Sites, or any of the zillions of free and low-cost, easy-to-use services already out there? Oh wait - newspapers still aren't used to the idea that they're competing with the entire Internet.

In other words, local advertisers will have as much to do with the evolution of Maine's newspapers as any other force, actively driving news organizations to become more rooted in the digital economy.

Any chance those local advertisers could drive daily news organizations to become more rooted in their actual physical communities? Yeah, didn't think that was on your radar.

The willingness of consumers to pay for information received online is also increasing. While not a full answer to revenue challenges, digital subscriptions add another revenue stream when done right and are proving successful at large and small papers across the country.

The pay model requires two things: scarcity and quality. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times can limit free access and require payment because they do stuff nobody else does. Maine's papers not only share each other's stories, but are heavily dependent on wire copy. Associated Press copy you read in your daily newspaper is by definition at least 12 hours old - that's how long it takes to receive, edit, lay out, print, and distribute information that's been online for free for most of a day.

If Maine's daily papers even want to think about charging for access, they have to start providing information that's unique to themselves, hasn't been published in weekly newspapers already, and is of unquestioned quality. Right now, there are fewer than five journalists in the state working for daily papers whose work is worth paying for. The rest of them may have talent and smarts, but are being ground into meaningless, useless dust by outdated management and editorial ideas - such as those that think making websites is a business opportunity for the future.

These models prove that readers value what newspapers have historically provided to their communities: unbiased, objective reporting and engaging, insightful information about the places where we all work, live and play.

You forgot the word "timely." You also forgot the word "exclusive." And when we see all that as a regular feature of all three of Maine's daily papers - and not as a special exciting extra, we'll think about being willing to pay. But if the NYT can't command more than $15 a month from subscribers - half the monthly print rate - how is a lower quality publication with smaller readership that has plenty of other options for getting information for free going to get any amount worth counting? If the PPH allowed digital subscriptions at half its present rate, that would be $6.50 a month. And remember, PPH quality, volume, and exclusivity are all far lower than the NYT, so we'd really be looking at something far lower as a subscription rate.

It's not yet clear what Maine's digital subscription models might look like, but it's fair to say greater experimentation is coming.

And experiments always find success, so positive results are assured, right? Right?

Finally, all newspapers agree that providing excellent, engaging content is paramount. Content is king and is driving competition and innovation across the industry, top to bottom.

Yep - and this is the first time that "content" and its quality have appeared in this missive. So we see where it rates as far as a priority for the daily newspaper leaders of Maine.

It is a golden age for journalism and those that practice it. With more people consuming more content in more ways than ever before, journalism's mission has never been more obvious or more important.

More boosterism, with no relevance or insight into how this will help Maine's daily newspapers in any way. Plus, any newspaper editor would have made sure "those that practice it" was properly edited to "those who practice it."

And as long as that mission is valued, a business model will emerge to support it.

Again, placing the foundation of this argument firmly in the clouds.

It won't be what newspapers looked like in the past, but it will be innovative and responsive to the rapidly evolving expectations of Maine's media consumers.

And closing with a heartfelt, meaningless, boosterish platitude. Maine's daily papers haven't changed a bit. And I wouldn't hold your breath about that.

Dana Connors is the President of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.

Michael Cuzzi is a Senior Vice President with VOX Global, a strategic communications and public affairs firm located in Portland.

Anthony Ronzio is the Director of New Media for the Sun Media Group & Past President of the Maine Press Association.

Jeff Inglis is the managing editor of the Portland Phoenix, Maine's largest single weekly newspaper, and its only alternative weekly newspaper.

Cutting healthcare for low-income women

Deirdre Fulton — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:40:00 GMT

Well, what we were worried about last year has come to pass: the likely closure of rural healthcare clinics in Maine that provide screenings, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, birth control, pre-natal care, and other sexual health services to women who qualify for reduced or free care. Some clinics also perform abortions. The supplemental FY2013 budget signed by governor Paul LePage last week includes more than $400,000 in cuts to the Family Planning Association of Maine,

According to an action alert distributed by FPA's vice president of public policy, Kate Brogan, seven health centers will be forced to close their doors -- including those in Damariscotta, Rumford, Topsham, and Sanford.

As you might imagine, anti-choice organizations are thrilled by this news.

More to come.

A proposal for admission to the Farmers' Market

Jeff Inglis — Fri, 18 May 2012 17:42:00 GMT

I've been talking to various people about how new vendors at the Portland Farmers' Market should be added, when space is available. It's a topic that was going to be discussed last night at a city meeting, but was put off until June 21.

City staff, and elected officials, largely want to hand off the responsibility of day-to-day management of the market to the farmers themselves, who - for their part - want that additional responsibility. (They've been exercising it for a while anyway, due to lack of city staff time, but everybody's looking for a formalization of the relationship.)

Most of the issues regarding running the market are pretty non-controversial: the mechanics of setting up selling areas, picking up trash, posting signs for each farm, and so on.

The only real question is who decides, and how, what new vendors can join the market.

Nobody's looking to oust existing vendors, but sometimes people stop attending the Portland market for one reason or another, and when slots available, there certainly is a lot of demand.

At the moment, the process by which new vendors are picked is fairly arbitrary. It's based primarily on what the farmers' market coordinator (who's a farmer, not a city employee) thinks would be best for the market. Everybody involved in this discussion is aware that there needs to be a good variety of items - meat, veggies, cheese, honey, and so on - to attract a good customer base. And there needs to be enough of each type of thing to satisfy demand, without either running out or having so much extra that lots goes to waste.

Right now, that system is mostly working. The farmers' market is very successful, both in terms of how lucrative it is for vendors and in terms of how useful and popular it is for area residents.

But the fact that it's working doesn't make it a fair or transparent system. And, in fact, it's neither. The city takes its lead on whose applications it will approve from the Farmers' Market Association, which holds a vote in its annual meeting about who should be allowed to join. While there's a certain bar for consideration - what items a would-be vendor wants to sell, and where those items are grown or processed - admission is up to the will of the association's members.

As associate city attorney Ann Freeman noted in a March memo, that raises concerns about transparency and fairness - concerns that are even more important when they relate to a private group deciding who gets to use public property to earn a profit.

Right now there seems to be a consensus emerging between the city and the farmers who are already in the market, that under a new licensing regime from the city, they should be allowed to continue their arbitrary system.

But the basic reason behind this consensus seems to be that nobody can think of another method that would be fairer and more transparent, while also allowing the flexibility to manage the market's variety. (Everyone does agree that a straight-up waiting list is a bad idea, because it could end up with a market filled with just veggie growers, and no meat, dairy, honey, or other produce - which would reduce the market's attractiveness to customers, and its viability as a business opportunity.)

In talking to all these people about the issues, I've been able to narrow down a key set of factors that pretty much everybody agrees should be considered when determining who should be new members. (In fact, the Famers' Market Association people say they already take these factors into account when voting.)

I've devised a fairly easy system that provides fairness and transparency, as well as flexibility. So here's my proposal, which is very much open for discussion, debate, revision, and alteration. It's offered here in the spirit of furthering creative thinking and problem-solving around how to allocate public space fairly.

The factors are these:

-How long has a would-be vendor been interested in the market? There is a waiting list of sorts, but its maintenance has fallen off because of uncertainty about how to use it fairly.

-Is the would-be vendor selling something that the market already has a lot of, or doesn't have much of?

-Is the would-be vendor interested in selling at more than one of the markets, or just one day a week (or just in the winter)?

-Is the farm based in Portland, or in another community? (There's a decent argument being made that Portland farmers/producers should have a leg up in their own hometown.)

-When during the season will the would-be vendor have the most product available (early-season and late-season suppliers are needed to supplement as vendors that peak in the mid-season fade in and out)

-Is the quality and quantity of the products to be sold sufficient to meet the market's demand?

I propose a points system, in which I've assigned points for various attributes of an applicant's proposal. Most of these are fairly objective. The last two, quality and quantity, are subjective, but reflect descriptions that reasonable people could probably agree on, and at least give a range of qualifications and scores.

On waiting list less than 6 months	0 pts
On waiting list 6 months-12 months	+1 pt
On waiting list 12-24 months	+2 pts
On waiting list 24+ months	+3 pts
Selling something with 0 existing vendors (see Rules, 6d - Products that may be sold - for categories in which to judge)	+5 pts
Selling something with 1 existing vendor	+4 pts
Selling something with 2 existing vendors	+3 pts
Selling something with 3 existing vendors	+2 pts
Selling something with 4 existing vendors	+1 pt
Selling something with 5+ existing vendors	0 pts
Farm based in Portland?	+1 pt
Selling at just one market (winter/Wed/Sat)	0 pts
Selling at more than one market	+1 pt
Peak availability in early season	+1 pt
Peak availability in mid-season	0 pts
Peak availability in late season	+1 pt
Quality	-2=abysmal;-1=below average; 0=average; +1=above average;+2=excellent
Quantity	-1=way too little/way too much; 0=a bit too little/a bit too much; +1=the right amount

The idea would be that, upon the opening of a slot at one of the markets, every applicant would be scored according to this chart (or whatever this chart is revised into). The highest-scoring vendor would be first admitted. If there were more than one slot available, then the slots would be assigned based on score.

If there were to be a tie in points, then the tie-breaker could be up to a vote of the existing vendors.

What other factors should be included? Should some of those factors be more important than others, and so have their point scores adjusted?

Brennan touts local development

Deirdre Fulton — Wed, 16 May 2012 18:56:00 GMT

At a press conference this afternoon, flanked by local economic bigwigs and creative economy gurus, Mayor Michael Brennan announced the roll-out of the economic development plan he touted on the campaign trail. The major initiatives are derived from the city's Economic Development Vision and Plan, which was adopted by the city council last year. That document recommended:

Developing a business visitation program to better understand what helps and hinders local businesses;
Increasing collaboration and coordination among members of the creative economy;
Streamlining interactions (inquiries, permitting, inspection, zoning, etc.) between businesses and city departments.

Brennan highlighted the business visitation program as a "key component" of the economic development strategy, and noted that the first such meeting was held this month (between the city and Intermed, where the press conference was held). He set the goal of accomplishing one of these visits per week, or at least two per month.

Finding out what local businesses need to grow, prosper, and create more jobs is more effective than spending a ton of effort trying to attract businesses from out-of-state, Brennan said. While the economic development team isn't abandoning that strategy, they acknowledged that it was more expensive and often less successful than focusing on homegrown talent.

And don't worry, this isn't one of those plans that leads to a report that suggests a new plan -- Brennan stressed that he wants immediate action. "What we're talking about is how we do better tomorrow, next week, next month," he said.

To that end, Portland has secured the services of Jared Clark, of the Massachusetts-based Government Consulting Group; he will work with the city manager and city economic development director to review and change the development, permitting, and inspections processes in the city, with the goal of establishing "the most timely process in the state of Maine," according to Brennan.

Brennan went on to outline several funding sources for businesses that encourage job-creation, creative endeavors, development in underserved neighborhoods, and private investment - including the Facade Improvement Program, the Portland Economic Development Plan Implementation Programs, the Business Assistance Program for Job Creation, and the city's Revolving Loan Program. Visit the city's website for more info.

Fairness at the Portland Farmers’ Market

Jeff Inglis — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:06:00 GMT

UPDATED 2 pm with info from Daniel Price.

Without some revisions, farmers and other vendors hoping to participate in the Portland Farmers' Market on Wednesdays in Monument Square and Saturdays in Deering Oaks Park are unlikely to find the already murky admission process any clearer under a new plan for market management set to be discussed by city officials on Thursday, May 17, at 6 pm in the City Hall's Council Chambers.

The present system is a quasi-informal one governed jointly by the city clerk's office and the Portland Farmers' Market Association, in which the city individually licenses vendors to sell their items, but with the number of vendors and the diversity of their products determined internally by the association - including voting on who gets to join the market when spaces become available.

The group running the market has asked the city to enter into an agreement similar to those in place in other Maine communities, in which the city would license the use of the space to the association, and the farmers themselves would handle everything else.

City Clerk Kathy Jones sees an advantage in handling less paperwork in her office, including relief from handling a waiting list so burdened that at least one vendor has been waiting "four or five years" to sell her flowers there. (The association tries to balance the diversity of active vendors, to avoid having too many vegetables, say, and no meats or cheeses.)

But some criticism of the proposal has come from the concern that the farmers would effectively control access to money-making opportunities on public land during farmers' market hours.

"We feel that the process of leaving it up to a vote of the membership, without any guidelines, could result in an unfair process," wrote associate city attorney Ann Freeman in a March 8 memo to the council's Public Safety, Health, and Human Services Committee. City staff, she noted, "would like to see objective criteria govern and not simply the will of the Association." Specifically, Freeman recommended there be "objective criteria, based on position on the waiting list, by which new farmers are invited into the market."

That concern didn't get any traction with committee members in March, and is missing from a proposed license the city is considering issuing to the Farmers' Market Association. The Public Safety Committee will take up the discussion on Thursday, May 17, at 6 pm in the City Hall's Council Chambers.

The lack of criteria has irked one local would-be vendor, Eli Cayer of Urban Farm Fermentory, which has applied to join the market to sell its items, which include honey, mushrooms, mead, and hard cider. Though almost all of UFF's items would be new to the market, two vendors selling cheese were admitted, and UFF wasn't, in the last round, Cayer says. He is not sure why that decision happened, or how.

At issue is not just a lucrative opportunity for local agricultural businesses, but whether - and how - the city should cede control over access to public land to a private group.

With no "objective criteria" along the lines of city staff's concerns, more questions like Cayer's are sure to arise in the future.

But there's good news: "If folks come on Thursday and say we think that the process is still not clear and we would like the city to have more clear language, I'd be open to that," Freeman says, noting that she acts at the direction of the councilors on the committee. "There's a lot of room to shape this."

UPDATE at 2 pm:

“We’re asking that the city step away from having any hand in the management of the market,” Price says, noting that city staff are often too busy to do much management (a point conceded by both Jones and Freeman).

The proposed license arrangement would clarify a lot of presently gray areas. “There are a lot of things to running a farmers’ market that the city’s rules and regs don’t address,” Price says.

For example, “It doesn’t say anything about how people are admitted to the market.” Which means this new arrangement would, technically, be clearer and more transparent than the existing system, but its effect may be substantially the same.

(Price says that in other cities, when farmers’ markets are on public land, there’s next to no regulation — perhaps the city rents the space to a group of farmers, but with no licensing or other oversight models on which Portland could base its new policy.)

Price says the process used to involve a waiting list, but that is “outdated,” because of the efforts to keep a balance of types of different vendors. The association now accepts applications and presentations, and existing members vote on who should be admitted, depending on how many slots are available and their own perceptions of what’s needed in the market.

Price says those factors at present include:

-preferring people who produce most of what they sell (as opposed to buying and reselling others’ items)

-the timing of the products intended for sale (the market sometimes can be slow to start in the spring, as early harvests come in, and winds down slowly in the fall, so producers with items at those times may find it easier to get in)

-if people are already in one of the Portland markets (Wednesday, Saturday, and winter), they are known quantities and more likely to get open spots in one of the others if they apply

-ensuring that the quantity being produced will be enough to meet the demand at the market

“We’re really not trying to keep people out,” Price says. Most of the members of the market are in what he calls “the more the merrier camp,” as opposed to the “there’s only so much to go around” school of thought about adding vendors.

“There is no objective criteria and I don’t know how you create that” in the face of varying demand from customers. “The only truly objective way to do it is the waiting list,” Price admits, but goes on to note that such a system could end up admitting people who are not serious about the endeavor, or who produce too little to be a viable seller.

Price knows he has his hand on the rudder of a very important factor in local agriculture: “This farmers market will make or break your business.”

As for Cayer’s concerns, Price notes that if there were a waiting list, Cayer would be behind several dozen people in line, so it might take many years for UFF to get to the market anyway. In the meantime, his advice is simple: “Keep trying. Apply next year.”

I'll update this story when I hear back from the Portland Farmers' Market Association people and from Public Safety Committee chairman Ed Suslovic.

Gay marriage opponent's react to yesterday's big news

Deirdre Fulton — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:43:00 GMT

Unsurprisingly, Carroll Conley is pleased about the outcome of Tuesday's gay-marriage vote in North Carolina, and non-plussed by President Barack Obama's confirmation yesterday that he supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Conley, who serves as executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine (which has teamed up with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to create Protect Marriage Maine -- the group that will lead the campaign against same-sex marriage leading up to the referendum vote this November), happened to be in North Carolina this week for his son's college graduation. As a result, he was able to "be part of the celebration" in Raleigh on Tuesday night, and to meet with NOM representatives for a strategy meeting on Wednesday morning.

"We look at [the 61-39 vote] as a continuation of a national trend," Conley said. "There has been a perceived momentum [in favor of gay marriage] but that momentum has always been in the context of judges and legislators making that decision." When citizens are allowed to vote on this issue, "it's gone to the defense of natural or traditional marriage," he said.

Conley also said he believes the campaign in North Carolina showed that this issue can be "a vote on marriage and not a referendum about homosexuality...In Maine our coalition is committed to the exact same principles -- you can be effective without resorting to name-calling." Conley noted that not all gay-marriage opponents are as committed to those ideals (cough, cough, Mike Heath).

As for President Obama's announcement, Conley dismissed it as a "celebrity endorsement."

"I don't think anyone was surprised by the president's remarks," he said. "I just don't see it changing anyone's mind one way or another."

To be fair, even Rachel Maddow said this morning on the Today Show that "symbolic value is hard to see in the moment...we will know more in retrospect."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Maine United for Marriage reacts to President Obama's announcement

Deirdre Fulton — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:22:00 GMT

Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United For Marriage, which advocates for same-sex marriage rights, says President Barack Obama's evolution on this issue mirrors that of thousands of Mainers.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC in a much-anticipated interview.

"That's exactly what we hear from countless people every day," McTighe told the Phoenix. "I don't want to say it's going to have an impact on the election itself but hopefully it will inspire some people to think twice about their positions."

Same-sex marriage supporters will re-launch their grassroots canvassing this coming Tuesday. They'll knock on doors statewide, hopefully "adding the types of conversations that the president alluded to today," McTighe said.

An inquiry to the conservative Christian Civic League of Maine, which is leading the campaign against gay marriage, has not yet been answered.

Still shaking my head about the #menews panel. Here's why.

Jeff Inglis — Wed, 09 May 2012 14:23:00 GMT

I'm still shaking my head in dismay and disbelief after Monday's panel convened, allegedly, to discuss the future of Maine's newspapers. (Here's the video.) I've spent many years in the alternative and community press, and am well used to seeing frequent examples of the outright cluelessness and lack of vision at mainstream daily newspapers. It's helped form part of my theory about what's wrong with today's newspaper industry. (In brief, it's that they don't realize what strengths they have, they value what they shouldn't, and are too full of themselves to look around at the wreckage they inhabit and decide to clean out the pigsty.)

But after Monday, I'm actually reconsidering my view that the larger players in the media industry - even the larger players in Maine's media industry, who are tiny specks in the global media universe - are out of touch with reality. Now, I have begun to think they're operating in a fully alternate universe than the one in which I've been reporting and editing - and living - for my entire career.

Here are a few of the moments that continue to really shake me, and, in italics, why.

Tom Bell, Press Herald reporter and president of the paper's union, said the paper's plan for self-improvement now that it has been purchased by hedge-fund mogul Donald Sussman is to double its news staff from 8 to 16 reporters. In my professional life, I've never worked for an organization with that many reporters - and I've always worked at papers that scoop dailies on an extremely frequent basis. It's unclear to me that the solution to failing business models is to put out more of the same stenography mainstream dailies are famous for. That said, the PPH has hired two crackerjack reporters: Steve Mistler and Colin Woodard (the latter a now-former member of the Phoenix's freelance crew). If they're the mold for what's coming next, then that does bode well. But their advantage is their actual skill, not how many of them there are.

Bell also said, as he has in the past, that the reason Sussman bought the company is for "philanthropic reasons." So a daily paper that is still allegedly profitable (though less so than in years past) is now a charity? It's certainly unclear that charities are big innovators in the news space. Even "new" models like ProPublica and the anemic Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting (MCPIR here) aren't doing anything that has never before been done in the news business. They're operating investigative bureaus at a loss, seeking subsidy from other, profit-making endeavors. (In past cases, it was the classifieds department of the same company; here it's whatever their donors actually do to earn money.)

Tony Ronzio, director of new media at the Lewiston Sun Journal's parent company, Sun Media, said news organizations will survive because they're unbiased sources of information. I'd love to think that's true, but it's not a business model - and especially not in our present society, where people debate seemingly obvious facts like whether the Earth is getting warmer, or whether trickle-down economics ever actually help the people they're supposed to trickle down to. It's almost impossible to find unbiased information - and mainstream daily papers are one of the least likely places to find it, since their reporters' workloads are too high to allow genuine inquiry, and editors' stomachs are too weak to allow more than he-said-she-said-he-said exchanges on even the most basic of recounting of events.

Todd Benoit, director of news and new media at the Bangor Daily News, said that the BDN is offering blogs to important thinkers in Maine, such as political-science professor Amy Fried at UMaine. Those are people who would previously be sources for reported stories, he observed, who now can weigh in directly to the newspaper's audience. That is indeed an interesting model, and one many other papers have attempted. The problem is the potential for a newspaper's website to turn into an environment like a TV talk show, where allegedly important people pontificate without regard for the facts. Perhaps it was lack of time causing Benoit not to talk about an editing process, or the means by which the BDN picks its bloggers, but he seemed to be saying that the value of the newspaper reporter as an intermediary is diminishing, not remaining valuable.

Ronzio talked briefly about the economic impact of newspapers and their employees, observing in passing that printing and production jobs in newspapers are "nothing to do with the newsroom or news gathering. Those are blue-collar jobs." It was barely a decade ago that most reporters considered themselves blue-collar workers too. He's right that reporters now are more inclined to think of themselves as distinct from the working classes, and see more in common between themselves and the corporate-government elite that's been running amok since the 1980s. Those efforts have gathered speed in the last 10 years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the lack of scrutiny has come at the same time as the detachment of daily journalists from their audiences.

Bell, responding to an inquiry about getting more young people reading the paper, suggested having a beat focusing on young people, rather than a geographic beat structure, like the Press Herald has. Perhaps he's choosing to forget the days Justin Ellis's "Generation NXT" column regularly made the rest of the Press Herald appear even more out-of-touch than expected by "the young people" (as Ellis's blog called those he intended to cover). Ellis is a nice guy, who had good ideas that were often hamstrung and neutered by myopic leadership. Maybe new ownership and management at the PPH would help. But that still ignores the fact that young people want to know about health care, the economy, education, politics, the environment, culture, and government. Which seems a lot like what non-young people want to know about. (And, for that matter, what people care about no matter where they live in a geographic beat structure.)

Bell also admitted that the Press Herald staff look at the Bangor Daily News and the Lewiston Sun Journal regularly, and said that's a change from the past. This is something that should give me hope, and should help me feel better about the state of Maine's newspapers. But the idea that the state's largest paper didn't even bother to regularly look at the second- and third-place papers is distressing. And the fact that it's new enough to be notable suggests it's not happening nearly enough yet. Bell also didn't mention that PPH reporters are well known for reading the community weekly newspapers in their coverage areas, and pretending they didn't get scooped by days or weeks when writing their own stories on subjects long since covered locally.

Benoit provided one of the only moments with a sense of urgency, when he said, "if newsrooms are evolving then advertising and marketing should be in full-scale revolution." Nobody talked about that at all, and from what's evident on the market and on the surface, Maine's mainstream newspapers are not even close. In fact, their newsrooms are farther ahead than their advertising and marketing. Which isn't actually saying much.

Terry Carlisle, general manager of the Ellsworth American, was perhaps the most obviously out-of-touch person on the panel. She outright scoffed at the idea of citizen journalism: "We're professionals . . . we don't need the help of people who are not trained to do it." It's never been clear to me that treating your customers as if they're helpless is a good business model. (Even hospitals know better than that.) And to outright refuse help? That's just stupidly arrogant. Admittedly, she works at a community weekly, rather than a mainstream daily. But none of the people sitting next to her even blinked when she said this, nor at her even more startling remarks.

Carlisle also claimed that young people aren't interested in newspapers; they only get interested later in life. National surveys show otherwise - and strongly otherwise. And that's in addition to the decades of success of alternative newspapers around the country, like the Portland Phoenix, whose core audience is in the group of people Carlisle suggests don't care about newspapers.

Carlisle also, separately, said that 18- to 24-year-olds "don't buy anything." Any of us who have ever been 18- to 24-year-olds know that's silly. If you're looking for expert advice, though, try the example of credit-card companies. They're extremely good at targeting people from whom they can make money, and they have for years been absolutely insane about getting college students to sign up for credit cards.

And Carlisle said she was dismayed by all the attention to lost circulation, saying that even after the drops, the Ellsworth American still has more readers in Hancock County than anyone else. She may be right about that - though the daily circ figures for the "mainstream" BDN and PPH are only barely above the circulation of the "alternative" Phoenix - but the problem is in how the circ drop combines with advertising rates. I'd bet none of the Maine papers has lowered ad rates, even while selling fewer eyeballs. Rather, they're in the position of trying to sell fewer eyeballs at higher rates. Sure, an ad in the Ellsworth American will reach more people in Hancock County than in any other publication, but why should it cost more than it did in the past, when it was an even better deliverer of advertising?

Carlisle had a very lucid moment at the very end, in which she said, "Nobody covers what we cover." This should give me hope - that perhaps people leading Maine's media outlets understand what they have that is valuable. But even Carlisle didn't seem to notice the importance of what she said. And certainly nobody else did. Of course, that statement isn't true for the PPH, BDN, and Sun Journal - not only are they all heavily reliant on wire copy (and on stories from the other papers under a shared-coverage agreement), but even the stuff they do cover is commonly covered by the local weeklies, often well before the dailies bother.

Bill Kuykendall, a senior lecturer in new media at UMaine (and a professor of mine when I was in grad school at the University of Missouri), observed that high-speed Internet access is expanding rapidly across Maine, thanks to the Three-Ring Binder project and UMaine's involvement in Gig-U. This is also something that should give me hope, except that none of the panelists even responded to this observation. That shows they don't understand the significance of the change that will come as their audiences move online even more quickly, and as mobile access to high-speed Internet gets even more widespread.

Kuykendall also asked the panel about moving to mobile apps, and what was possible for them to afford. Carlisle was the only one who answered the question - the Ellsworth American does have some mobile presence, she said. The folks from the dailies changed the subject. It's impossible to talk about the future of news without talking mobile, but that's what Maine's three largest daily papers are doing. Maybe they have something up their sleeves, but there was no sense along the lines of "we'll have something, but we can't tell you yet what it will be." Rather, the sense was, "Mobile? Who cares?"

There were a couple of bright points, though.

First was Bell's observation that Maine's papers are privately owned, carry little debt, and have owners who are involved locally. All of these are good starting points for organizations seeking to make changes. They're less likely to get bogged down in choosing a direction, more flexible at adapting, and largely unconstrained by outside economic forces. But being at a good starting point right now is WAY behind the rest of the industry's pack, and risks leaving Maine's media market - like its industrial market - as a backwater of little note.

And second was Ronzio's observation that the local community is what's going to support the newspapers, rather than any sort of national or regional advertising base or readership. He's right, and if even some of Maine's newspaper leaders are realizing this, they are approaching the starting gate on real positive change. But being at the starting line is still very far behind.

While I'm reluctant to end on a low note, the fact is I have a worse view of the mainstream press in Maine than I did before Monday. Not least is because I asked a question of the panel that I've been asking since 2009: Given what they're talking about as future changes (connecting with young readers, using social media, providing context and depth rather than just stenography), how will they compete with those news organizations, including the Portland Phoenix, that are already doing all of those things, and have been for years? There were jokes and criticisms, but no real ideas. As one person said afterward, it produced a lot of squirming, but no substantive responses.

Maine court rules on important surrogacy case

Deirdre Fulton — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:41:00 GMT

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are trumpeting a decision made today by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which states that courts "have the authority under current law to determine who a child’s parents are when the child is conceived through procedures like in vitro fertilization and then carried and delivered by another person."

The case, which involved a married couple from Massachusetts and a married couple from Maine, dealth with the question whose name should be on the birth certificate in a surrogate-carrier situation. In this particular case, all of the parents involved agreed that the Nolans (of Massachusetts) were the sole parents of the case, but Mrs. La Bree (of Maine) remained listed as the "mother" on the child's birth certificate (she carried an embryo that was created by the joining of the Nolans' egg and sperm). A district court judge had previously found that it did not have the power to determine maternity; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court clarified that the courts do in fact have this authority. The Nolans will be able to get a new birth certificate with themselves listed as sole parents of their son.

While this case did not involve a gay or lesbian couple, it is highly relevant for same-sex families.

“This ruling provides certainty to parents and children by clarifying who is and who is not a parent when couples use reproductive technologies,” GLAD Attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who filed an amici brief in the case on behalf of medical doctors, infertility organizations, and attorneys who specialize in reproductive technologies, said in a press release. “Many people – including same-sex couples – use medical assistance to bring children into their families, and the law needs to keep pace with the science in order to ensure that families and children are acknowledged and protected."

LePage to speak in secret to miners, highway contractors #mepolitics

Jeff Inglis — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:34:00 GMT

Republican Governor Paul LePage will speak to the Maine Aggregate Association this evening - that's the group representing Maine's gravel and rock industries. But the public won't be allowed to hear his comments.

Despite LePage's pushing of an East-West highway, and his recent relaxation of mining regulations, an official announcement was issued Monday from the governor's office specifying that the speech will be off-limits to media coverage.

Which leads us to wonder what he's going to say to the representatives of corporate interests who must be among his biggest fans. Here's the official announcement:

Public Events for the Week of April 22, 2012

Correction: The Maine Aggregate Association's Annual Membership Meeting & Banquet on Wednesday, April 25 is not open to the media. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

6:00 p.m.

Maine Aggregate Association's Annual Membership Meeting & Banquet

Location: Italian Heritage Center, 40 Westland Avenue, Portland

Background

Maine Aggregate Association is a state-wide member based group of businesses and individuals involved with the gravel and rock industries. MAA operates to ensure the regulatory requirements remain practical for the industry while protecting the environment. Governor LePage will deliver the keynote address.

Workers subsidize their employers in Maine's tax break heaven #mepolitics

Jeff Inglis — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:53:00 GMT

Bath Iron Works staff subsidize their own jobs - directly, and in proportion to their pay. People around the country are being stunned by the latest report from David Cay Johnston, called "Taxed by the Boss," in which he details companies around the country that get tax breaks from their host states in the form of keeping payroll tax money normally deducted from workers' paychecks and sent to the state coffers.

Maine is one of 16 states that has such a program (and one of six that has two!), costing Mainers $10.2 million in tax revenue last year alone - cash that would be sent to the treasury but instead is kept by companies.

Bath Iron Works is the biggest beneficiary in Maine, and 14th biggest beneficiary in the country. The company is owned by General Dynamics, a major government and military contractor with billions in taxpayer-funded contracts and profits. But over ten years, Johnston's report shows, BIW has gotten more than $60 million in tax breaks of this type.

Some of you may be startled to learn this, but we here at the Phoenix are not. We reported on this tax break and billions of dollars in other corporate giveaways back in 2008, based on the first-ever complete survey of Maine's tax breaks, conducted by Maine Revenue Services. It was a story called "Tax Break Heaven," by Lance Tapley.

The survey, repeated every two years, details the BIW credit as "the shipbuilding facility tax credit," and capped at $3.5 million per company. You can see the latest report here (look under "Expenditure Reports") - with a page for every single tax break the state offers. Here's a direct link to the latest PDF.

NY Times on the politics of gay marriage

Deirdre Fulton — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:43:00 GMT

Required reading in this Sunday's Times magazine: Bill Keller's explores the political ramifications of voting for gay marriage if you're a conservative Republican (or at least, a Republican backed by New York state's Conservative Party).

Among the highlights:

State Senator Mark Grisanti's quote: "I swore with my hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution; I didn't swear with my hand on the Constitution to uphold the Bible."
The factor of "salience" - aka, how passionately you feel about an issue. The salience factor on gay marriage appears to be shifting, with supporters feeling just as strongly as opponents.
How voters, state party officials, and national lobbies for and against marriage equality deal with these four defecting Republicans in New York could say a lot about how elected officials in other states approach the issue.
"At the very least, voting for gay marriage, even if you are a Republican politician from the heartland, is not the risk it would have been just a couple of years ago. The four defectors aren't guaranteed re-election. But if they lose, it is likely to be in spite of their marriage vote, not because of it."

ArtVan is Launch Maine winner

Deirdre Fulton — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:15:00 GMT

I wrote last week about the League of Young Voters' Launch Maine contest. More than 170 ballots were cast at the party last Friday night; ArtVan, which brings art therapy and inspirational projects to youth in low-income neighborhoods around Southern and Midcoast Maine, was the winner of the $500 grand prize. Congrats!

Portland Phoenix's prison series on BBC World Service

Jeff Inglis — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:21:00 GMT

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that six terrorism suspects in the United Kingdom could be extradited to the United States, rejecting the suspects' argument that they would be subject to "inhuman and degrading treatment" in an American supermax prison.

Portland Phoenix writer Lance Tapley (whose long-running award-winning prison series has led national supermax coverage) and prison-rights activist Ray Luc Levasseur spoke to the BBC about prison conditions in an interview from The Studio in Portland (with audio help from Jim Begley). Here's the link - they appear in the segment starting around 2:33:14.

Maine's mining bill and more

Deirdre Fulton — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:46:00 GMT

In this week's Phoenix, out tomorrow, Lance Tapley talks to state senator Justin Alfond about several troubling pieces of legislation still up for debate in Augusta (there are just two weeks left until the end of the legislative session).

One of those is LD 1853, An Act To Improve Environmental Oversight and Streamline Permitting for Mining in Maine, which would change the state's mining laws, making them more lenient. There was public testimony about the bill in Augusta on Friday.

Last week, we got some additional info about the bill from Portland state representative Denise Harlow, who sits on the Environment and Natural Resources committee that is considering the bill. Here were some of her thoughts:

"Essentially, this bill lifts many of the environmental restrictions on mining from 1991. It would make it much easier for companies to mine in Maine and will most likely be used to ask the commissioner to rewrite the rules and this process will take 1-2 years. The bill is far from finished, and we have spent countless hours working on it since it came to the committee less than 2 weeks ago. But, keeping in mind that the original bill from 1991 is over 80 pages long and detailed, the question remains whether or not we should even be looking at this issue so late in the session, as many of the rules surrounding bills are lifted when they are presented this late in the session. This happens regardless of which party is in charge. Our senate chair Tom Saviello has allowed wide latitude for comment from anyone who wants to do so, but the reality is that many experts are not able to get time off from work to travel to Maine to testify on this important change with short notice. It is my opinion that we should, at the very least, look at this issue longer before asking the commissioner to rewrite the rules. After all, this rewrite is going to cost money, and we have no assurances that there will even be an application after the rules are completed. This bill should not be a priority, given the real emergencies that are currently happening in our state."

In Tapley's TJI, Alfond also blasts Governor LePage's second supplemental budget (LD 1903) and LePage's proposal to lower Maine's highest income-tax rate (which Engage Maine, a progressive advocacy organization, says would result in a "revenue death spiral").

In an email last week, Alfond he elaborated on what he describes as misplaced priorities:

"More than a year ago when we all took office -- legislators and the governor alike -- we all agreed that job creation had to be our #1 priority. And for the last year, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to get Maine people back to work and put more money in to the pockets of working and middle class Mainers, the GOP majority has spent the last year distracting us with their ideological agenda: attempting to roll back child labor laws, minimum wage, environmental standards, and women's choice issues; attempting to repeal voters rights laws; they've focused on corporate giveaways to out of state businesses through loosening insurance regulation and last but not least there's an over all tenor of disdain for the Maine worker by putting big business first. The governor has been quoted as blaming unemployed workers for not working, accused them of taking advantage of unemployment insurance, etc. Worse, in 2011 alone, there's been a net loss of 1300 jobs in both the private and public sector. While the economy is in an uptick across the country, Maine ranked in the bottom five for job growth nationwide." [Emphasis his.]

Read Tapley's piece for more insight into this soon-to-be-complete legislative session.