“Media mistrust has been growing for decades — does it matter?” asked a recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts. “Midway through the 20th century, the news media was among the most trusted institutions in the United States. Today, it sits near the bottom of the list, outflanked only by Congress in most surveys.”
Somehow, the question makes that loss of trust seem like folksy skepticism. Mistrust of the press is something authoritarian rulers have systematically sown. I was a young editor when Nixon put reporters on his enemies list and Spiro Agnew stepped up to call the press “nattering nabobs of negativism.” That seems quaint compared to the attacks by America’s current leader.
Working on a small-town independent newspaper is not like being in the mainstream press. Mostly, people do talk to our reporters. Still, we have been feeling ripples of this mistrust in our newsroom. It’s harder to get people to answer questions. We’re having trouble researching a promising environmental story because nobody at the National Seashore will talk with our writer.
I was taught that newspapers can inspire trust by checking facts. When we do make a mistake, we correct it. But we can’t fix mistakes if people don’t tell us about them.
Two weeks ago, we published a report about the Wellfleet Affordable Housing Trust’s discussion of a new state law encouraging the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The town’s board of health had just adopted a new set of regulations on upgrading septic systems to comply with a court-ordered reduction of nitrogen contamination in Wellfleet’s waters.
Michael DeVasto, a member of the Wellfleet Select Board, didn’t like the new rules — even though they are a long-awaited solution to a massive pollution problem. He said they could slow down the development of badly needed new housing, including ADUs.
We quoted DeVasto saying, “Basically, under the new regulations, you can’t convert any space to an ADU anymore, even a pre-existing space, without creating another septic cost.” That statement is misleading. In fact, the new rules say that the health board will look at each property individually and grant exceptions where they are justified.
DeVasto did say what we reported him saying, but we should have noted that his comment was inaccurate, and we should have provided the relevant facts. Our mistake, though, was compounded by silence from the town’s health officials. Normally, when something we report isn’t correct, we hear from people who want to set the record straight.
Why didn’t the town health officials say anything? I think it’s because they have been under attack and didn’t want to draw more attention to the issue.
This kind of self-censorship is troubling. We’re closer to getting the water quality facts sorted out this week, but that silence has me wondering if people are going to stop talking to each other about public affairs. That’s a version of mistrust that erodes democracy, so let’s keep talking.
