Hi Gerry,

Thanks for the e-mail and the invitation to provide my perspective on the rapport that the city administration has with The Sun newspaper. At the outset, let me say that I have the highest respect for the journalism profession. I believe strong healthy media is crucial for our form of government in this country. Of course, my perspective is more focused upon local government where information is particularly crucial as we discuss and consider questions of public policy and its implementation.

By way of background, I have been in the business of local government for 31+ years during which time I have worked quite well with dozens of reporters. Many of these reporters have gone on to larger outlets and great success. During my time as Town Manager in Chelmsford I once had simultaneous coverage from The Sun, three weeklies, The Boston Globe Northwest, two radio stations and Lowell Cable News along with local cable access shows. The result of this coverage was a healthy distribution of information and news that clearly benefitted the citizenry. I didn’t always agree with positions that the media took on issues or its coverage of certain stories but I understood the job that needed to be done and respected these journalists on an overall basis as fair and balanced. During my time in Chelmsford I only filed one complaint with an editor for a story written by a reporter (the Boston Globe) and subsequently that reporter acknowledged the misunderstanding and has regularly contacted me for various stories in a very collegial manner.

Since becoming City Manager of Lowell I, along with members of the administration, have continued the practice of being accessible and available to the media, now adding local bloggers to the mix. We include The Sun in this accessibility, likely to a fault. Reporters from the Sun regularly contact us at all hours and on all days including vacations and holidays and we readily address their question whether related to Lowell or otherwise. The reporters that have been specifically assigned to City Hall have generally been excellent in their coverage by being fair and balanced. And, they have generally been experienced reporters with extensive knowledge of municipal government having covered smaller communities before being thrust into the 4th largest community of the state. The City of Lowell and its residents deserve the best possible reporter(s).

Unfortunately, the administration has not generally received positive reviews by the editor of the paper. This is unfortunate given that the same editor would regularly call me when I was the Town Manager of Chelmsford seeking my “municipal management expertise.” I’ll leave it to others to determine why the administration has received this treatment especially given the positive news that has occurred over the past five years in areas of local finance, economic development, improved management practices and public accessibility. The perspective of the paper has often reflected the editor’s negativity and done so through misleading stories and distorted editorials. As a result, I have occasionally sought redress from the editor and publisher.

Over the past 18 or so months I have generally taken a position of not expressing my concerns and instead accepting the coverage that was given and the editorial positions that were presented. Unfortunately, over the past six months I have noticed a ramp up in stories that are misleading and inaccurate, a shortage of stories that present the accomplishments of the administration and editorial positions that are often based upon erroneous information. As such, I have increasingly felt it necessary to speak out about the inaccuracies of its reporting and the apparent bias of the paper. I have also reached out again to the publisher of the paper and the editorial board in a letter written on September 14th. As of today, that letter has not been published in the paper. I did however reach out to the publisher to discuss these matters. I did receive some response to this request and am awaiting a follow-up to meet on the matter. I certainly recognize the busy schedule of Mr. O’Neill and appreciate the times that he has met with me in the past.

The thrust of my letter of the 14th was the characterization by the Sun in stories; editorials and a column that the City’s building inspectors were somehow unqualified as some were not yet certified by the state. The Sun’s coverage failed to note, for whatever reason, that the inspectors had exemplary construction experience and had been approved by the state as inspectors. The coverage also improperly conveyed the notion that the city inadequately inspected the porches of a building on Liberty Street that collapsed despite being told repeatedly that the inspection of the property was a standard five-year review of a multi-family structure which does not include structural items that are not visible. The story also did not note that the City had been failing for the past 10+ years to do these types of inspection and that we were making this effort a pro-active priority.

There are numerous examples of other faulty reporting. There are stories with characterizations that taxes and spending have skyrocketed over the past five years though facts tell a different story especially when contrasted with the prior five years. This coverage necessitated postings on my blog and yours to correct the record.

While other area communities have implemented the local option meals tax, only Lowell has received multiple articles and editorial opposition, and stories that seem to imply that the tax only exists in Lowell. I don’t believe Tewksbury’s recent adoption even received an article.

There have been editorials claiming that I have dragged my feet on finding health insurance savings by not simply joining the state GIC when such an option simply doesn’t exist. Up until now it has required union consent and even now requires City Council adoption of local option legislation. I hardly think the employees and retirees of the City would see my actions as foot dragging as we have aggressively sought savings through negotiations and support for plan design authority. Interestingly, Chelmsford’s adoption of the local option language received very positive coverage by the Sun. Lowell’s consideration has been lukewarm at best focusing upon union and retiree opposition with scant mention of taxpayer savings.

There have been multiple stories regarding the Arch Street police garage project. This is a simple case of the City complying with the low bid law and using good business judgement, saving the City some $500,000. Some employees wanted a more expensive option. I recognize that that might be worthy of a story but am bewildered why the issue has received numerous stories that seem to indicate that the purchase was wrong or inappropriate.

The coverage of complaints by a few library employees regarding work conditions has received multiple stories while the position of other library employees in support of the library has been essentially disregarded. And, the facts of safety at the library have been skewed to paint a picture that is inaccurate.

There are many other examples and numerous cases of misinformation over the past six months and cases where the comments of administration officials, and others, have been taken out of context or worse, seemed to be fabrications. A glaring example is a story regarding the City Solicitor’s work on an ordinance restricting access to the Library for Level 3 sex offenders. In that story the Executive Director of the City Solicitor and Town Counsel Association was quoted as disagreeing with the City Solicitor’s opinion. In fact, in a strongly worded letter sent to the Sun reporter the Executive Director disputed the story and the quote. A retraction by the reporter or a publication of the letter has not occurred. I have attached the letter.

J Lampke-Mayor Mgr 8 22 11

Efforts to explain information is met not with a skeptical but open mind but with apparent suspicion that everything said is wrong or a lie. The result of this and the troubling use of selective quotes is increased reticence on the part of officials to respond to requests for comment. I see this as very unfortunate as it is counter to the goal of the administration to be open and accessible.

In the end, the people of the City lose out by coverage that is misleading and inaccurate or by City officials not being able to get correct information. As a result, we have sought other means of disseminating information and interacting with the public. We use the local blogs, WCAP, local cable and meetings with residents, businesses and other organizations and we are especially grateful to these alternative outlets.

We continue to respond to reporters from The Sun but are increasingly doing so in writing so as to establish a record that can reflect the full context of the responses given.
And, we are considering the posting of these responses on a webpage so that the public has full access to the back and forth between the reporters and officials.

In the past I have offered to meet on a monthly basis with The Sun editorial board to discuss anything they want. Unfortunately, that offer was not accepted. I stand by that offer and in fact think it would be an excellent opportunity for live-streaming per the new MediaNews approach to presenting the news.

In closing, I’m anxious to get to a point of solid reporting of stories that are accurate, fair and balanced. We don’t expect all positive stories and we understand that there will be stories we don’t like. But, the paper and the City can truly only do their job when both sides are open, transparent, respectful and at until proven otherwise trustful. I would like to get there.

Bernie Lynch

On WCAP this morning the City Manager took the time to “clear up” something in today’s Sun Editorial that he thought was misleading. The portion of the Editorial that he had an issue with was this:

“Cobblestones remain on Middle, Palmer and Shattuck streets — the core of the downtown district — yet some sections are in poor shape and will likely face an asphalt future if the present course of action becomes the norm.”

He said he spoke with someone at the Sun about these streets and wanted the public to know the cobblestones were staying.

It seemed rather minor to me, especially considering that the Editorial was under another one and most people may not have even read it.

It indicates what I see as a growing animosity between the Manager/Administration and the Sun. The Manager and probably many of the staff feel that the SUN is out to get them, doesn’t print all the relevant information and paints the administration in a negative light.

The Sun on the other hand thinks it is their duty to ask questions, report what they consider to be relevant facts and be an advocate to ask the administration for answers and point out items that they see as questionable. They often mention the rights and freedom of the 1st amendment which was set up to be a check on the 3 sections of government.

Under the 1st amendment as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the “primary purpose” of the First Amendment was “to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches” (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary). Justice Stewart cited several landmark cases in which the Supreme Court – the final arbiter of the meaning of the First Amendment – has upheld the right of the press to perform its function as a check on official power.

In a free-market democracy, the people ultimately make the decision as to how their press should act, says George Krimsky, the former head of news for the Associated Press’ World Services he goes onto say that “The watchdog role of the free press can often appear as mean- spirited. How do the government and public protect themselves from its excesses? In the United States, it is done in a variety of ways.

One, for example, is the use of “ombudsmen.” In this case, news organizations employ an in-house critic to hear public complaints and either publish or broadcast their judgments. Another is the creation of citizens’ councils which sit to hear public complaints about the press and then issue verdicts, which, although not carrying the force of law, are aired widely

The Manager and others (including this blogger on more than 1 occasion) have questioned the reporting and fairness of the Sun. The Sun does not have an ombudsmen and usually doesn’t respond to criticism.

So is the Manager to thin-skinned? Does the Sun have a Bias?

I asked both Mark O’Neil the Publisher of the Sun and City Manager Lynch today about what I perceive as a growing rift in their relationship. I was curious to see what the Sun felt about the Manager’s accusations and what the Manager really thought of the Sun’s reporting.

First up – Mark O’Neil, Publisher of the Sun…

GN: This morning on WCAP City Manager Lynch again indicated that the SUN was misleading the public. This time he was responding to your editorial Lost Appeal,… Is there an issue/problem with the communication between the Lowell Sun and the City Administration, specifically the City Manager? How does the Sun respond to the Manager’s accusations that the Sun intentionally misleads the public when it comes to fully reporting on responses he provides?

Mr. O’Neil:

Gerry,

Regarding the first part of your note, I don’t see the controversy with today’s editorial.
I Didn’t hear the manager this morning. Per your note, he indicates he spoke to someone from The Sun and apparently he did have a brief conversation with someone several weeks ago.

There was a rumor about all the cobblestones downtown being removed, Bernie relayed that was not the case and that message was never conveyed to any of the editors as it was a non-story until it was brought up as a question today. Regardless, the editorial is an observation and an opinion that stands on its own merit.

As to your formal question…The Sun stands by its reporting and accuracy. The Manager is always welcome to meet with us at any time to discuss any concerns he may have with our coverage.

Regards,
Mark

I’m sure Mr. O’Neil would also say that the impression that the Sun is not being fair or are out to get the Manager is not true nor do they mislead the public. That accusation has been hung on the Sun since the Costello family owned it. Some think it is simply ludicrous to think a Publisher would let an Editor operate that way but I will say that Mr. Campanini has left some room for question.

When I asked a person who works in the media, their opinion of the Sun they said “They are doing their job and will continue to do just that and won’t be intimidated or swayed by anyone else’s agenda.” That is how most responsible papers operate. When there are areas of doubt or issues that need to be uncovered and shared, the Sun will do so accordingly.

Next up..The Manager’s response.