Category Archives: Print-vs-Digital

Researchers Rush to Preserve Data on Government Websites

For over 200 years, public notices have been published in newspapers in part as a consequence of the inviolability of newsprint. Legislators have always understood that when they passed laws requiring notice of official actions to be published in newspapers, a record of the notice would be easy to authenticate and would remain in newspaper archives in perpetuity.

A recent conference of independent researchers provides an excellent reminder that government websites fail miserably at meeting that traditional public-notice standard.

According to StateImpact Pennsylvania, about 100 researchers met in Philadelphia last month to participate in the University of Pennsylvania’s Data Refuge “hackathon,” to copy important environmental data that they fear may disappear from government websites for political reasons. The archivists, librarians, tech workers and students “hunched over computers” and made notations on white-boards as they raced to preserve climate data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that was potentially endangered by the incoming Trump Administration.

But regardless of whether their worst fears turn out to be valid, government websites are not a reliable place to store important information, assistant director for digital scholarship at Penn Laurie Allen told StateImpact, a collaboration between local NPR stations in the Pennsylvania.

“The internet is a terribly unstable way to keep information available,” said Allen. “A huge number of references to websites no longer work.”

Within hours of its inauguration, the Trump Administration demonstrated that the researchers who met at Penn were prescient, as reports quickly circulated about information that had been erased from the White House and other federal agency websites.

Kentucky, Wisconsin Conclude Public Notice Reviews on Positive Note

wisconsinCommittees formed to review public notice laws in two states adjourned last month after showing strong support for maintaining public notices in newspapers. Wisconsin’s Legislative Study Committee on Publication of Government Documents and Legal Notices ended its review on Oct. 10, deciding to recommend only one change to a minor category of notices. Three days later, the Kentucky General Assembly’s Program Review and Investigations Committee ended its 27-month study with no changes.

“The final recommendation of the (Legislative Study Committee) unanimously supported the continued publication of public notices in newspapers,” said Beth Bennett, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association (WNA), in an email sent to her members following the committee’s third and final hearing. “We believe that the committee conclusions and recommendations will benefit newspaper efforts to fight off attempts to eliminate public notice going forward.”

Bennett said the legislation recommended by the committee would slightly modify a category of notices required to be published by local government units. She said WNA has not opposed the change in the past and will review the legislation when it is drafted.

The review in Kentucky was prompted by a senator’s assertion that the state could save a significant amount of money by moving public notices from newspapers to government websites. The committee staff presented highlights from its 115-page report at its final hearing, which also featured testimony from Kentucky Press Association (KPA) Executive Director David Thompson.

The report showed wide variations in the estimated cost of public notice spending by individual counties, cities, and school districts. Nevertheless, even jurisdictions that spent the most, percentage-wise, devoted a mere fraction of their budget to public notice advertising, according to the minutes of the meeting. For instance, although the city of Sadieville, with a population of 313, spent less than half of 1 percent of its budget on public notice, Louisville/Jefferson County spent even less, just two-hundredths of 1 percent.

KPA’s Thompson told the committee that the state should continue to require public notices in newspapers to support government transparency and ensure taxpayers know how their tax dollars are spent. He said a change in the law and consequent loss of revenue would “be detrimental to weekly papers (who’ve told him) they would probably have to cut one or two employees,” according to a report in The Daily Independent of Ashland.

“Several committee members made comments and asked questions but none were convinced moving notices out of newspapers is best for taxpayers,” reported KPA’s member website.

Note: The photo illustrating this post shows Gregg Walker (left), publisher of The Lakeland Times in Minocqua and the Northwoods River News in Rhinelander, and Andrew Johnson, publisher of the Wisconsin Free Press Group, testifying in July before the Legislative Study Committee. Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.

Print Wins One; Wall Street Journal Chalks It Up to Lobbyists

The national media tend to operate in internet-saturated media environments and often overlook the value of print to key constituencies. As a result, Consumers for Paper Options, an organization funded by the paper and mailing industries, has an uphill battle to be heard as it tries to preserve the ability of the public to read information on paper.

wsjSo it was hardly surprising when the Wall Street Journal recently cast the print-vs-digital issue as a collision of lobbyists rather than a consideration of policy. That’s how it reported the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent decision to scrap plans to let mutual funds resort to digital distribution of their reports instead of providing hard copies in the mail. SEC Chair Mary Jo White announced in August that the digital-default option would not be included in a package of sweeping reforms to be proposed by the agency. The comment period for the proposal had included opposition by citizens who did not like being forced to read from a screen and felt printed copies were easier to digest.

WSJ’s take on the story? “In the end, big paper scissored big mutual funds.” (subscription required) The consumer voice evidently counted with the agency. Not so much the Wall Street Journal.