A former editor once demanded that every story a
reporter wrote must contain an element of conflict. It is what
reporters do: find two (or more) opposing viewpoints and write
about  where the disagreement lay.

    It's not always as easy as it sounds, but it has
never been easier than it has in recent weeks when it comes to writing
about what is happening at South Portland City Hall.

    Elected officials and the professional staff has
been under enormous scrutiny over a rapidly expanding number of issues
facing the city. The interesting part is that scrutiny is not coming
just from the press, but from other elected officials and staff.

    The press has been there covering the conflict and
applying its own scrutiny, but often the role has been that of 
passive receivers of information sent by those with agendas we do not
always understand let alone agendas consistent with our own.

    When we receive gossip, rumors or even facts,
whispered and off-the-record, it is easy to be seduced by the power of
sharing a secret or knowing more than the average joe. Unless one is
careful, such secret information can have a corrosive effect on the
role of reporters. Ironically,  a relationship based upon a
deception (i.e. "You didn't hear it from me, but...") takes on the
trappings of a relationship based on trust. (i.e. "I like so and
so...she tells me what's really going on.) A secret can create a bond
if one is not skeptical of why secrets are being told in the first place

    Reporters rely on information told in confidence
because it allows us to investigate issues we may otherwise have been
unaware. But to rely on such information as if it were the whole story
is a dangerous leap to make.

    The current controversy at City Hall will eventually
be resolved, whether in fireworks or a fizzle remain to be seen. But in
the mean time those who work on behalf of the citizens of South
Portland ought to be reminded they are playing on the same team.

                –Ward Peck