BRATTLEBORO — One of the many threads of the national discussion of the constellation of issues around the #MeToo movement is, of course, the media.
We have treated such stories as too legally fraught to touch, let alone explore. We have avoided these stories, buried them, sanitized them in a wash of false equivalence and equivocation.
And women have been the worse for the way we have covered these issues - or not covered them.
We in the media must change. We deserve scrutiny. And we need to embrace transparency and work hard on stories about these themes.
So in that spirit, here are a few words to talk about why we tackled one of the most provocative and challenging series of stories we've undertaken in this young newspaper's history.
* * *
Last fall, I sat at my computer watching woman after woman post their stories on Diana Whitney's Facebook thread. I saw these heartfelt and often uncomfortably intimate words publicly accumulate. There was a lot going on here. I felt in my head, my heart, and my gut that The Commons should do something to plumb the depths of this local awakening.
As it happened, Landmark College Professor MacLean Gander, who teaches journalism there and who worked as a reporter for Newsweek back in the 1980s, was eager to do some reporting for us. His wife, Shanta Lee Gander, began to collaborate. Shanta is new to journalism - what a story to start with! - but she is no stranger to writing, to community provocation, and to the unique peculiarities of Brattleboro. And having a female perspective in the telling of this story has proved to be essential. We deeply thank them for stepping back in and doing the additional reporting that was on my docket.
Peter Rizzo, for his part, has been nothing but professional, forthright, and candid to The Commons during the course of our reporting a story that he believes is manifestly unfair to him. I doubt he will like this story, though I'd be pleased to be wrong. He did not have to participate, but he did. That was honorable.
As is customary in such stories, some of their more than 40 sources sought to have their names withheld. Whether they were talking on background or for attribution, we have striven to respect and honor their candor. We recognize that there were moments of discomfort in the process of asking difficult questions, and we appreciate everyone who participated in helping us understand.
* * *
Never have we at The Commons encountered so very many sources who directly, and sometimes persistently, challenged us about pretty much every aspect of this story, from reporting protocol to the types of photos we were considering to why it was taking so long to get into print. “It seems like there's a different excuse every week,” one source said. (Well, yes - that's because any single curve ball in our tiny newspaper's production routine was by itself enough to delay completion of this gargantuan task.) Part of our nonprofit's mission is to educate citizens in the skills of creating media and, in that context, these questions have been healthy and helpful.
Producing this Special Focus was not a quick process, and some even insinuated that we were complicit in silencing voices that needed to be heard. We trust that readers understand that we were taking time to approach this report thoughtfully, respectfully, and carefully.
Doubtless some readers will disagree that we did so. As with everything we publish, we deeply encourage dissent and thoughtful responses, and we look forward to a continuing dialogue about these issues in our Voices section.
And whatever you think of this effort, whether you think that Mac, Shanta, and I succeeded or failed or deserve a mixed grade, one message comes through loud and clear in our reporting: It's impossible to address the tough issues that matter in a community if most of the people can't hear the whispers.
So let's all keep talking. -Jeff Potter, editor