What's up with the New Paltz Times?

Is it me, or was this week's issue of the New Paltz Times particularly tough to read?

I'm not talking about emotionally wrenching or frustrating stories - of which there were plenty, mind you - but the sheer density of bizarre errors that riddled the latest issue like termites through a lonely widow's home.  The volume and variety of mistakes make it clear that no one person could possibly be to blame, even if the paper is shortstaffed, which I suspect is true.  I had a tough time getting through it, because by the time I got to the end of an article the only thing I could remember was strange mistake that made it unique.  Let's take a look at a smattering, in no particular order:

1. The page one article Change in Chairs does not continue on page 6 - you'll need to turn to page eight.
2. In that same article, it was noted that Lloyd ZBA member John DiLorenzo "formerly submitted a letter asking not to be reappointed."  I'm sure it happened before the article, but I think formally was the word that the reporter was looking for.  In fact, it's the very word used further down the page when discussing a quote by outgoing ZBA member Joan deVries Kelley.
3. The article itself, which was exclusively about appointment by the Lloyd Town Board, is inexplicably topped by a picture of the New Paltz Town Board at its reorganizational meeting.
4. Futon Life, about the closing of the Foreign Wide, amused me.  Two lines below the where the word "wholesale" is correctly spelled, it's used again - but incorrectly spelled as two words.
5. On page seven, in side-by-side articles two different reporters shared the same redundant phrasing.  We read about how "members of the Town Planning Board members" discussed changes to the sign ordinance, while two columns away Jonathan Wright, "a member of the planning board member," is quoted on a separate issue.

That's five errors that took me about five minutes to find, in a paper that's only twenty-eight pages long.  I know that all newspapers have mistakes, and I certainly make my own fair share, but that's errors on 17.8% of the pages without me looking particularly hard.  In fact, I avoided looking over another front-page article entirely because that piece almost sent my wife the English and Journalism teacher into apoplexy, and I figured I'd let her provide her own reaction to that one if she chose.  So, what's up with errors?

Now I know three Ulster Publishing employees that are involved with this paper personally, and I like and respect them all.  I also have exchanged frequent emails with the editor, who has remained professional, pleasant, and cordial even when my frustration with decisions made over her head certainly put her patience to the test.  All of my contacts  with New Paltz Times staff members leave me the impression that these are bright, talented people who are more than capable of putting together a fine weekly community paper.

I won't claim to be a fan of Ulster Publishing or its head honcho, who sits in an ivory tower dictating editorial decisions that regularly draw ire if the letters page is any indication, but I'm more than a little worried here.  Is he making life so miserable that his skilled staff is losing heart?  Will the drudgery of working for someone that cuts obituaries in favor of ads going to sap their wills so deeply that the New Paltz Times will lose readers faster even than other print newspapers?  I still like having a community newspaper, even one steering a course I don't agree with.  If our little paper gets so bad that it tanks, I doubt it will be easily replaced (unless the publisher of the Chronogram gets a hankering for weekly news, but Christmas is over by a long shot).

I'm probably being melodramatic; the New Paltz Times will exist as long as people buy it, and people in New Paltz would rather have news riddled with problems than no news at all.  But I really do hope that working conditions improve at Ulster Publishing.

Bill Mulcahy has good points and bad about Channel 23

Bill Mulcahy wrote a letter about Public Access TV that was published in this week's New Paltz Times. Since Ulster Publishing doesn't keep pages on their website forever (and my email to publisher Geddy Sveikauskas clarify the policy has as yet not been responded to), I'll reproduce it here rather than linking to it:

Channel 23 is mired by 'censorship,' local politics

I was happy to read last week that Don Kerr is "working tirelessly" to end his "tyrannical rule" over our public access channel (Time Warner cable Channel 23) on weekends.

With all of Don's contributions to this community, like his being on the school board and his recent elevation to the chair of the school board's Facilities Committee (which deals with multi-million dollar contracts with construction contractors, engineers and architects), I don't know where he finds time to be the sole programmer of the public access channel on weekends.

Unfortunately, I cannot also praise the way the Public Access TV (PATV) Committee is being run by Don Kerr and his co-chairperson, village representative Andrea Russo.

For the last few years, I have been the main producer of non-governmental videos on Channel 23 and produce the only live public education show ("New Paltz News" - 7 p.m. on Fridays). You would think that would get me some appreciation from the Town Board and PATV committee co-chairpersons for the many public meetings, hearings and live shows that I have videotaped at my own expense.

Just the opposite is true. For example, when I videotaped the recent (Oct. 27) Public Access TV Committee meeting, I was treated with more than the usual hostility by the PATV co-chairpersons. They made a point of making me videotape the meeting from the public seating area. Shortly after the meeting began, Town Board member Kitty Brown ambled in and sat herself directly in front of my camera. She refused to move even after I asked her to. I took this to be a gesture of Kitty's contempt, not only for me, but also for the public who would be viewing the video.

When the public speaking time came around, I tried to ask questions about some public access TV issues. This apparently upset Don Kerr who angrily snarled: "This is public comment time, what is your comment?"

That's funny; I didn't know that the public comment time was supposed to be a one-sided monologue with no response from the committee members. I have also noticed a coolness from Don when I have showed up to videotape the school board's Facility Committee meetings. I would think that as PATV Committee co-chairperson Don would be happy for the public to be informed of this committee's activities. In my opinion, he isn't.

At the PATV meeting, Kitty expressed her anger about an excerpt from a town videotape of a New Paltz Police Commission meeting being re-aired. I had been asked to convert Nora Strano's videotape of the public speaking time to a DVD for Channel 23 broadcast.

Kitty's outrage by the airing of a public comment time of a Police Commission meeting once again shows what some of our politicians stand for; and that is secrecy, censorship and control of "public" access TV (and other committees) by them directly and through their politically-appointed cronies.

It's time for a change.

Bill Mulcahy

New Paltz

Bill is legitimately concerned with open meetings and public access television. His willingness to record a meeting for later broadcast truly is a service to the community.

However, I can't agree with everything he has to say.

• Public Comment. Generally, public meetings have a public comment period. This is a good thing. Some bodies, such as the Town Council, allow some leeway in this period, and will actually engage in a dialog with citizens that are commenting. This is not the norm, and it is not required. Such dialog could be disruptive to the flow of the meeting, making a long night unbearably longer for those elected officials or volunteers that are required to be there. Bill admits, and I can confirm, that he attempts to engage in such dialog without first determining if it's appropriate.
• Role of the cameraman. By volunteering to record a meeting, one has accepted the role of silent witness to the proceedings. Having a disembodied voice issue from behind the camera can be disorienting to the viewer, and having the camera spin around to give an extreme closeup of the cameraman can be downright disturbing. I would argue that a cameraman waives his or her right to even participate in public comment. Moreover, the cameraman is not a de facto participant in the proceedings themselves, and should exercise restraint when the urge to comment or ask questions manifests. Generally it is journalists who seeks such comment; those that bring along a camera arrange for someone else to operate it.
  
• Placement of Camera. If a meeting is not planned with a camera in mind, it can be difficult to find a place for it. A camera at the table must be turned to view each speaker, which can cause motion sickness in certain highly sensitive people that also own extremely large television sets. On the other hand, smaller cameras like most hobbyists own don't have the sound system to record at a great distance. Ultimately, the operator of the equipment should be willing to build bridges with the meeting's facilitators so the best location for all concerned can be selected.
  

I don't know much about the circumstances of airing sections of public comment from a public meeting, and I haven't seen the footage of Kitty "expressing outrage," but certainly Bill is correct that if a meeting is public, there's no reason to prevent its being recorded and broadcast.

I hope Bill continues to film public events, but I can understand if he's getting a frosty reception from time to time. There is a balance between recording the action and being part of it.

Local Gadfly is Born

So when Brittany Turner, in musing on New Paltz's write in campaign for Town Council, referred to me in passing as a "local gadfly," I was amused and honored. And annoyed, but not at Brittany.

• Amused. I didn't realize I was such a pain in the ass that anyone actually ever noticed me.
• Honored. It's a title my father would have worn proudly, so I can only imagine that he is proud of me now.
• Annoyed. My fifteen minutes of fame is fleeting, because the online archive of Ms. Turner's editorial is not forever. I have discovered, in my secret life as a Wikipedia editor, that one cannot easily cite any Ulster Publishing article as a source there, because they eventually (read: in a year or so) take down the information! Not so with real newspapers, and a pretty crappy policy overall. Mind you, I don't care if me being listed as a gadfly is immortalized, really; the whole situation just reminded me of how cheap Ulster Publishing is that they purge their old articles from the web.

So I'm a gadfly, local to New Paltz, and the mantle of gadflydom has been thrust upon me. I figured I might best live up to these vast responsibilities by creating a blog that no one will ever notice. Yes, I could just write in a journal at home and know that nobody was reading it, but there's something satisfying about knowing that someday, perhaps long after I'm gone, my words will have meaning to somebody.
After all, Google owns Blogger, and they don't purge their database of old material.