The indignation of the news media called to task for their reporting never ceases to amaze me. It follows age old school yard behavior of children who, when the bully is finally and ultimately taken down a notch cry foul when for so long that same individual has been bullying their peers but now that some one bigger, stronger, or more intelligent comes along and holds the individual accountable cries foul themselves, and expects people to take their side, pity them and ultimately say, ‘you’re right, poor you!’ This is true in the latest complaint of the Plymouth Independent, specifically Mark Pothier in his complaint against Town Manager Derrek Brindisi. Mr. Brindisi has directed appointed town officials and employees to cease all communication with the Plymouth Independent – as is his right to do as Town Manager. This is part of the reason as to why the Town has hired a communications director – it is literally their job to interact with the media and communicate the Town’s message to and with the media.
Mark Pothier’s list of grievances leveled against the Town Manager is tantamount to a bully crying foul. His claims, and the claims of others that the Plymouth Independent is dedicated to free, independent, unbiased journalism is hyperbolic, misleading (and borrowed from NPR and APM.)
It appears that the PI will only report on issues critical of the town’s officials. If you support the PI, their interests and supporters you’re one of the ‘good guys;’ if not you wear a black hat and depending on who you are, that hat has a point. The Plymouth Independent is not The New York Times.
This response is about the January 10, 2025, article accusing Town Manager, Derek Brindisi of limiting town appointed officials and employees First Amendment Rights; an exaggeration at best. One of the principal roles of the town manager is to see to the daily operations of the town and its’ departments. This simple statement is an oversimplification of what the town manager does daily. If individuals who are employed or appointed by the town and its agents are constantly engaging the press (not social media, that is another leviathan not part of this response) then he or she would be constantly responding to questions for clarifications.
As part of the administration’s long-range goals, last year the town employed a communications director. It is the communication director’s job to communicate official town business and messages with the news media and other outlets. Other employees, not authorized to speak with press, should understand that it is not their role to directly speak with the press, unless they choose to do so under the condition of anonymity. Employees and officials may reach out to the press with the caveat that they do so anonymously; said persons are not speaking on behalf of the town nor should they. There is no First Amendment violation here. When an individual works for an institution they may not speak for that institution unless authorized to do so. This is true of any major organization. Mr. Brindisi is exercising his right as a supervisor to curb false information and assure the public hears official town communication from and through the proper channels. Again, that is what a communications director does. In many instances communicating with the press, or not is a condition of employment; should individuals choose to do so they could suffer negative consequences unless they clearly state they are expressing their personal views and not those of the organization.
In my own practice, I may not speak for my employer; I cannot communicate information unless I clearly state the opinions being expressed are my own and do not reflect those of my employer. This is common practice. The First Amendment is alive and well in Plymouth. The PI is still free to publish what it chooses. Residents can still express their opinions. No one is being muzzled, only asked to use the proper channels and engage with the press professionally. However, when a news organization behaves in a way that is meant to be inflammatory, negative, or biased; when a news organization loses the trust of the agencies they are reporting on, in this case the town and town administration, those organizations lose access. This is what has happened however, the Plymouth Independent sees things differently.
The Plymouth Independent has chosen to be overly critical of the town’s position on communicating with the press. The PI does what many news organizations does, sensationalizes, and exaggerates all in effort to foster more likes and views on its digital platform. There is no balance in its reporting. If the Plymouth Independent were truly committed to balanced reporting it would have do so.
For example, last year The PI reported on why two members of the Advisory and Finance Committee abruptly and publicly resigned from the committee following a contentious meeting. I was a member of the A&F at that time. It was a very difficult meeting as one agenda item dealt with a homeless shelter currently under development in the Plymouth Industrial Park. The committee had an extremely difficult decision to make having nothing to do with those who experience housing insecurity and everything to do with the law and public finances. Yet when the PI reported on the story, this was not mentioned. I reached out to the PI to discuss this issue asking for balance. I heard crickets. Is this free, independent, local, unbiased journalism of the highest standards? Again, this is not the New York Times.
Mr. Brindisi is not the only town official criticized by the PI. In a matter of public safety Chief Dana Flynn has also been critiqued by the Independent. Running red lights at an intersection is not only an issue of safety; it is against the law. The Plymouth Independent harshly criticized Chief Flynn for not being more forthcoming in his and the departments plans to mitigate this issue and in the way he responded to requests for an interview. Does the public really have a right to know how law enforcement plans to mitigate a safety issue? Why? So that those motorists who seem to think is it legal to run a red light can avoid certain intersections in favor of others and by doing so risk safety. I would venture a guess and say ‘no.’ Allowing law enforcement to do their jobs is what keeps the public safe. However, it is much easy to be hyper critical and accusatory than it is to be civic minded and safe. New York Times or National Enquirer, you choose.
There are other instances where the PI misses its unbiased, impartial reporting claim include the following. For example, why would Fred Thys need to record a meeting that was in fact being recorded? Or question the request for a recording of a meeting? What is the PI trying to look for in these cases? While the PI staff of reporters does have a storied experience, this is Plymouth not Spotlight.
Plymouth’s issues are important however the sensationalistic stance that the PI has taken in reporting town issues borders on the absurd. The Plymouth Independent has taken to targeting town officials and town officials have responded appropriately. When statements are taken out of context a logical response is to communicate through written responses. There can be nothing misconstrued from a written response to interview questions. Corresponding only with the individual whose job is to communicate official town messages cannot be misunderstood even when clarifying questions are asked of them; it is their job. It must be understood too that, sometimes information can be communicated and sometimes not; it’s the nature of government no matter how small or large.
The town manager understands this and has done what he needs to do in order to ensure clear and balanced communication. He is an employee of the town, not an elected official and needs to have the best interests of the town in mind at all times. Mr. Brindisi is not derelict in his view of the press in democracy he is doing his best in communicating what the issues are and what is pertinent to the residents of the town. The idea that this is a First Amendment issue; or that an attempt to measure and communicate information systematically and judiciously is a violation of the First Amendment is misguided. This is part of the problem, the cherry picking, cafeteria approach to the First Amendment is what is the root of the issue. Perhaps the staff and writers of the Plymouth Independent needs to re-evaluate what the intentions of this new outlet is. Plymouth is a great community and, yes, there are issues facing the town; rising property taxes being chief among them. Perhaps the PI should take a look at that and report on what the cause of this issue was. Perhaps, if the PI worked with the town instead of looking for a smoking gun that does not exist, it would see what town officials elected, appointed, or hired are trying to accomplish. They are trying to establish community where residents young and old, newly moved here or that have been here for generations are proud to live in a town filled with a rich history, cultural diversity, and potential. I am afraid though, that this response, because of who it supports and who it criticizes, will never see the light of day. New York Times or National (Plymouth) Enquirer; you choose.
Sincerely,
– Robert A. Zupperoli