The Hartford Courant is continuing its campaign to defeat proposed legislation that would permit towns to save millions of dollars in advertising costs by posting legal notices on government sites instead of in daily newspapers.
In its lead editorial yesterday, The Courant admitted it and other newspapers have a “vested interest,” but failed to tell its readers how big that vested interest is. A complete copy of the editorial is at the end of this column. A column I wrote Sunday focused on the full-page ad on the subject in that day’s paper.
“But the public would lose, too,” the editorial says. “The cost to democracy would be serious and the public’s right to know could be diminished. Now, public notices appear both in print in the newspaper as well as online, on newspaper websites and on www.CT.PublicNotices.org, an aggregation of all newspaper legal notices, a free service provided by the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association.”
That is one of more outrageous editorials I have read in my old newspaper (as you all know I do have an ax to grind).
To claim that posting these legal notices in newspaper – which no one that I know reads – serves democracy in some serious fashion puts logic on its head.
While it’s a nice luxury to have when there is plenty of money around, its not something that municipalities can afford when they all face serious financial cutbacks, requiring them lay off employees and cut back services.
What would The Courant like? Maybe West Hartford, for instance, should cut the number of teachers. East Hartford could reduce the number of its firemen, and Glastonbury could cut policemen so that Publisher Richard Graziano could have a bigger bonus.
If these ads are so important to democracy, shouldn’t The Courant print them for free and maybe ask its top managers to give up their bonuses? They had no trouble telling the workers that there would be no raise for them this year.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE FULL EDITORIAL
LIMITING THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and some lawmakers want to relieve Connecticut municipalities of the cost of unfunded state mandates. Fair enough. But one of the proposals — allowing the posting of certain public notices on government websites rather than publishing them in a daily newspaper — is a bad idea.
It would limit taxpayers’ access to vital government information.
Here are examples of the kinds of legal notices that could be harder for the public to find if the legislation — introduced by Sen. John McKinney of Fairfield and Rep. Larry Cafero of Norwalk — is enacted: annual town reports, foreclosure notices, and notices of the date and time of town meetings, hearings on zoning applications, special elections and other bulletins about government that citizens need to be informed.
Newspapers, including The Courant, admittedly have a vested interest in the outcome. We would lose revenue if the bill is passed and municipalities are given a no-cost alternative to newspaper advertising rates.
But the public would lose, too. The cost to democracy would be serious and the public’s right to know could be diminished.
Now, public notices appear both in print in the newspaper as well as online, on newspaper websites and on www.CT.PublicNotices.org, an aggregation of all newspaper legal notices, a free service provided by the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association.
The legislation, if passed, would allow public notices to appear exclusively on government websites, despite the fact that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population views a local, state or federal government website daily and more than 25 percent of adults don’t even have access to the Internet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
By comparison, the National Newspaper Association says that 83 percent of adults read a local newspaper at least once a week.
If passed, the legislation would allow public employees to bury information on websites that is now easily found by readers of daily newspapers. Many more people read newspapers than scan government websites.
Also, newspaper publication of legal notices produces a permanent record while the Internet does not. And a newspaper is archived for years.
Isn’t the current system, in which public notices are reliably reproduced in print and also appear online, best for the public interest?
