Two retired professors in Door County wrote a book about newspapers, and they discussed the Advocate
There are four pages with discussion about the Advocate. It starts at https://books.google.com/books?id=f86kEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17. Their book is written for people who are more liberal, because they make partisan remarks from time to time.
The very end of the book has a paragraph on each of the authors, G. Michael Killenberg and Rob Anderson:
https://books.google.com/books?id=f86kEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA17&pg=PA397#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some more of their advocacy is in an article they wrote this past February: https://doorcountypulse.com/guest-column-democracy-and-journalism-fueled-by-everyday-conversation/
The book does not mention the Washington Island Observer. Another omission from this book is the line of thought that, if the local newspapers which closed were so great, then why weren’t they good enough to stick around? Wouldn’t truly good newspapers have better staying power? Some local papers have survived: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/feisty-community-newspapers-surviving-or-even-thriving-against-the-odds/. Was there something about them which set them above the Advocate? Should they be seen as better than the Advocate due to their success?
But the writers instead argue that the papers which failed were good and it was a bad thing that they failed. They want to conserve local papers, and for local journalism to make a comeback.
This is worthwhile to reflect on; no matter how successful someone is at the moment, it could all be lost later on. Likewise, a paper can publish things in its own interests of pursuing financial success which nevertheless are bad for the community reading the paper. So material success is not a worthwhile way to evaluate journalism.
Extending this train of thought, the same is true for other businesses and also whole communities. A business or community which is presently successful and appears poised for future success is not necessarily in the right, or a good model to emulate. Personal and collective evaluations and judgments must be deeper than reflecting on success and failure.
My thoughts on this book are incomplete, because Google Books says “Page 86 to 151 are not shown in this preview". Looking at the Table of Contents, the omitted parts include cases where people were trying to repress journalism, and journalists had to do something about it. The sub-headings indicate that they did a thorough job of reporting relatively recent legal developments, and if it is anything like the portions available on the preview, they are presented in an easy-to-read manner and not in a technical, academic style.
The remark at the beginning of Chapter 5 that "journalists mostly work as if anonymous" is true in a present-day big city, but that is less true in smaller communities. It also goes against what they described earlier; the authors acknowledged the value of having a web of relationships on page 21. Some are public figures and lots of people know who they are.
Personal relationships partly explain why some of the articles at https://archive.co.door.wi.us/jsp/RcWebBrowse.jsp are written so well. If put to use, the older articles could serve much the same purpose today that they did the day they were printed. Just because the Advocate was sold to a big name and was hollowed out does not necessarily discredit the past work of its staff.
This letter to the editor from the May 9, 1972 Door County Advocate describes an example of how journalism can utilize personal relationships:
KARNSTEIN'S STORY
Tuesday, May 2 the district attorney of Door county made certain statements in the Advocate which I feel were made to abscure the truth. Mr. Hedeen would have us believe that Keta Steebs is irresponsible and does not research her material before
publication. This could be proved false right now, but probably will be proved false when the attorney general's office decides to investigate law enforcement in Door county and all facts can be brought out. When people in Door county can stand up and tell the truth without fear of reprisal.
Mr. Hedeen stated that some statements he made were taken out of context, and some were inaccurate. So let me tell you readers what really happened and then you be the judge.
During my conversation with Mr. Mallien after the shooting, he told me that he was a deputy-sheriff so when the police arrived I was not about to trust any Sturgeon Bay law officer after being nearly killed. I was extremely afraid and asked to be taken to the state police or to the police station. I even asked the police, and I use the term loosely, to let me notify a relative so that somebody knew of my whereabouts. Fishing rights were the farthest thing from my mind at this time. I just wanted to stay alive. My fears of the police were well grounded, because when I told them that I was shot at by Mr. Mallien, I was told that there was nothing that they could do about that and if I didn't keep my mouth shut I would wind up in jail.
When I arrived at the police station I again tried to file a complaint against Mr. Mallien and again I was refused, but Mr. Londo, who claimed he had not witnessed the shooting or alleged trespassing, signed a complaint for criminal trespass against me. And I was told I should pay the fine so that I would not have to miss work and have to come back later that week for court. This I refused to do. After vainly trying to get a complaint against Mr. Mallien, I decided to find the DA and speak to him myself.
That evening I went to Mr. Hedeen's house and told him what had happened. I was told to go back to the police station and sign a complaint against Mr. Mallien. When I returned to the police station the police still would not let me file a complaint but did let me give them a written statement.
The next morning I was told by a resident of Sturgeon Bay to go speak to Keta Steebs of the Door County Advocate. I was told that Keta Steebs was an honest reporter who was not afraid to speak the truth.
When I told Keta what had happened, she was amazed and upset that a person could have had an experience like I did in this modern day and age. She immediately called Mr. Hedeen and then went to his office with me. When I arrived with Keta the DA was only to eager to take the complaint. He stated that all Mr. M's guns would be taken away.
We were told that Mr. Mallien had gone to Ohio and that he would be arrested when he returned. When I insisted that Mr. Mallien be extradited the DA told me that he would not do this and that if I didn't like the way he was handling the case, I should forget about it. I was told that Mr. Mallien would be persuaded to return home.
Several days later I was told by the sheriff that he had no right to take Mr. Mallien's guns away and that Mr. Mallien still had all his guns. Several days after this the DA said that Mr. Mallien's pistol had been taken away, and that he had no intention of prosecuting me for. criminal trespass.
The morning when the case finally came to trial Mr. Hedeen told me, while my wife, Mr. Mainka and Mr. Fulton were in the room with us, that Mr. Mallien's attorney had his gun, and that the police had not taken any of Mr. Mallien's guns away. He also told us that Mr. Mallien's land was not legally posted. Then he asked the others to leave the room and gave me a summons for criminal trespass, with a court appearance scheduled for 15 minutes later that same day.
I will not bore you with Mr. Hedeen's conduct of the trial. The records speaks for itself. But in my opinion Mr. Hedeen did not fulfill his duty as DA. He seemed to be more concerned about trespassing than the charge against Mr. Mallien.
I am willing to back up every word of this letter with a lie-detector test given in Milwaukee, a community with honest law enforcement, if the DA and the police officers involved will do the same.
WALTER KARNSTEIN
Courtesy of the Door County Library Newspaper Archive
The statement further down in Chapter 5 that journalists "differ from average citizens because they provide a vital service" is true at a superficial level, but it isn’t like you ordain a journalist and he or she gets an indelible character. Like with most professions, most adults could do journalism if it paid enough and they had the time, training, motivation, effort, and opportunity.
The strength with which they endorse the profession of journalism is concerning. Why couldn’t they use their journalism to skills to, you know, dig into corruption and expose the truth about journalists? Parts of Chapter 5 (it is not all available on the free preview) reads in a rather one-sided manner in favor of the journalists.
As journalism professors, it was the authors’ duty to design courses which serve to weed out any especially malignant characters seeking to get journalism degrees. Maybe they fulfilled that duty, but if they were really as oblivious to risk of journalists with poor character as they seem to be in their book, that is concerning. The authors complain about journalists being given labels by politicians, but another approach, besides pushing back at the politicians, would be to try and solve the underlying reasons for why politicians are able to do this and that people believe them for it.
If one doesn’t endorse the entire profession of journalism as strongly as the authors do, is it better to just not read or listen to them? In some situations, the answer is yes, absolutely. But sometimes there are positive reasons to read a newspaper anyway.
The quick answer is for readers to make character evaluations, much the way they do for people they know in person, or candidates they are considering on a ballot. The long answer is how to practically do that.
A biographical article on Steebs:
https://doorcounty.substack.com/p/citizen-steebs-randy-finds-a-liberal
Other comments about newspapers
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/comments-about-newspapers