Lobbying for its daily bread

For an example of a newspaper lobbying furiously to preserve its bottom line, here’s the Richmond Times-Dispatch, arguing that allowing localities to print notices on websites (there own and others) as opposed to newspapers is a threat to freedom of information:

The bills would let local governments (or in one case, a state agency) bury public notices deep in the bowels of their own websites, rather than publish them prominently in independent, third-party local newspapers as they must do now. If you have ever tried to find such notices on the localities’ websites — and we have — you know what a frustrating and usually futile search it can be. Passage of these bills would give a green light to secrecy and concealment.

The idea that local government websites can sometimes be unsolvable mazes is well taken. But the RTD isn’t telling us the whole story.

Take, for example, John Cosgrove’s HB 234, which is on the RTD hit list. It removes the requirement that timeshare associations must advertise sales in newspapers and proposes instead that such sales “may be listed” in papers. Otherwise, all the relevant information will be found at a “web address for a website which shall list all particular information concerning the sale as well as information on other time-share foreclosure properties offered for public sale.”

Mark Cole’s bill, HB 623, would still allow for newspaper notices, but also for online notification (see the section on “Notice of times and locations for registration”).

Or consider HB 773, Steve Landes’ bill on “publication of notices for charter changes, referenda, and public hearings, etc.; alternatives.” It is hardly the “pernicious” bit of legislation the RTD would have us believe:

.At least ten 10 days prior to the holding of such election, the text or an informative summary of the new charter or amendment desired shall be published in a manner gauged to ensure that the maximum number of persons within the locality are likely to be informed and shall include at least two of the following forms of publication: (i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality, including such newspaper’s online publication, if any; (ii) on any website of the locality; (iii) on any public access channel operated by the locality, to be aired during prime-time programming and at least two other times during the day; (iv) using any automated voice or text alert systems used by the locality; or (v) posting at the local public library established pursuant to § 42.1-33, if any. In addition, any resident of the locality annually filing a written request for notification with the locality shall be provided notice by the locality in a manner mutually agreed upon by the locality and such individual. The request shall include the resident’s name, address, zip code, daytime telephone number, and electronic mail address, if available.

Rather than hiding information, or making it less available to the public, these bills simply seek to bring government notices into the 20th century (if they added Twitter or Facebook, it would be 21st century notification).

The RTD’s real concern is the potential hit to its bottom line. Calling it a threat to the public’s right to know is silly…though the less charitable would call it what it really is: desperate.

Contribute for Conservatism!

About the author

Norman Leahy

Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.