"Spinning" Out of Control

The newspaper wars are on again. On Wednesday, the Independent reported on allegations that the Everett Advocate had accepted payment from Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department for what appeared to be a "news story." The Advocate rebutted in today's paper and, in keeping with their pledge to "tell it like it is", implied that the service in question was for "advertising" -- without actually saying it was advertising but denying the Independent's contention that it was a paid "news story." It would seem, however, that the Advocate is not so much "telling it like it is" as "telling it" as they would like it to be believed.

The Advocate claims that the invoice in question, from March 2004, was for a series of centerfolds that ran in the Advocate. However, a review of the invoice shows that it was specifically for three 5 column x 16" pages in the March 5 edition of the Advocate covering "Budget Finance Meeting and Photos" of the School Committee. The total of the invoice was $1200. Since only two of the pages were photographs, one could easily draw the conclusion that the third 5 column x 16" layout, which is the measurement of one page of print in the Advocate, referenced in the invoice was to cover the accompanying "news story" written by "Ira Richards" and an unsigned Advocate Commentary taking members of the City Council to task for questioning the budget practices of the School Committee.

The Advocate also points out that of the $200,000+ spent from the Shore Collaborative "reserve fund," the Advocate "has been the recipient of only $12,000 for advertising" -- or less than 6%. In reality, the Advocate received $12,690 in payments from Shore Collaborative during fiscal year 2004, which runs from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. In fiscal year 2003, however, they received total payments from Shore Collaborative of $22,500. Over a period of two years, the Advocate received a total of $35,190 in payments from Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department . . . which is actually 16% of the total $208,000 expenditure made in those two years. However, the total advertising expenditures in the three newspapers for fiscal year '03 and fiscal year '04 was $61,779, which means that the Advocate received 56% of the total advertising dollars spent through Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department for those two fiscal years.

It would appear, then, that the report in the Everett Independent does have some merit to it, and the Advocate is "spinning" in an attempt to maintain credibility in this instance. Unfortunately for The Advocate, there is evidence in black and white that contradicts their assertion that their dealings with the School Department, at least in the March 2004 edition of their paper, was a legitimate business transaction . . . and it is the invoice that came directly from them that appears to prove the Independent's point. This is not to say that the Independent's motives in reporting the story are pure -- of course they would take whatever opportunity they could to bash the competition. In this instance, however, it looks like the Advocate handed them the club.