The Hopkinton Dependent?

On December 6, the Hopkinton Independent featured an article titled Town addresses ‘fraudulent invoice’ from HopNews, media advertising policy. Staff Reporter Mary Ellen Gambon accurately reported the statement read by Select Board Chair Muriel Kramer in the December 5 Select Board meeting, which was the same statement published by HopNews on December 4 in the story Town Pays Fake Invoice. Who’s Minding the Store?.

Following the Public Forum portion of the Select Board meeting, Kramer read:

“We learned today that the Town of Hopkinton recently received a fraudulent invoice from HopNews.com that was unfortunately processed and subsequently paid. We have taken the appropriate steps to correct for the mistake and cancel the payment; we have further taken the steps to ensure that our review processes for like payments are reinforced to protect our employees and the town from similar fraudulent activity in the future. We want to be clear that we have full confidence in our employees, and we will be pursuing appropriate legal recourse to protect the town in the future from fraudulent activities.”

The Independent also reported that HopNews’ Editor Peter Thomas was present for the meeting. What Ms. Gambon did not do, however, is request a comment from Mr. Thomas, nor did she ask the obvious larger question: “How could any company send a fake invoice to the town, have it go through all of the checks and approvals (as mandated by state law), and still be paid?”

Don’t the readers of the Independent deserve to know the facts of the matter, rather than the town’s prepared statement on their interpretation of the facts? Or are they content to be a printing press for town hall?

Their blackout of coverage is not limited to this incident. There are several events that occurred in 2023 that are objectively newsworthy, with no mention of them in the Independent. For example, the former Parks and Recreation Director under investigation for embezzlement, any objective analysis of the true cost of the Elmwood School replacement project, coverage of the criminal history of a recently elected member of the School Committee, or the recent mass exodus of town employees. None of these paint Town Hall in a good light but they are important for residents to understand nonetheless.

The devil is always in the details. A look at the Traffic Journeys of their website visitors tells the story of how the Independent sometimes appears to operate as a function of the public relations arm of the town.

The left side of the chart is where visitors to HopkintonIndependent.com originate; primarily from Google searches. The right side is where they are likely to go next when they leave the website. A full 45% go to HopkintonMA.gov. This is an indication that the Independent frequently uses the town’s website as their cited source.

It’s not difficult to speculate as to why the Independent is loathe to cover anything controversial in Hopkinton. In the first place, Town Hall is a customer, having spent $32,215 over the last few years on advertising. Perhaps they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them?  

Second, readers of the print edition of the Independent will note there is very little actual content relative to the number of pages. It appears to exist primarily as an advertising vehicle. But this is not surprising; the parent company of the Independent is Bagdon Advertising, which owns the Community Advocate, serving Westborough and surrounding towns. The Community Advocate was started by the current publisher David Bagdon’s father as an advertising circular for Shrewsbury businesses.

In other words, their roots are in advertising, not journalism.

It should be clear to readers of both publications that they cut very different lanes. Responding to a post in the Hopkinton Uncommon Facebook group on November 2, resident Heather Smith summed it up best:

“The perception is that the other outlets [Hopkinton Independent, eHop] maybe prefer to report on all things positive and things that are noted in a town meeting almost as if a note taker was there and translated to the paper for those who missed the meeting. HopNews is perceived differently as they aren’t really writing as notes taken from a meeting but rather notes from legal files or wherever journalists get info from. I think if they all have the same access the outlets are choosing to deliver in different ways so neither outlet should be perceived as better. I might be overthinking it but just seems as of late there are a lot more adverse activities happening in town than perhaps over the past several years …maybe there wasn’t, maybe the newer news outlet is just reporting differently.”

In a related story, also on December 6, the Independent reported that Mr. Thomas had appeared before a joint session of the Planning Board and Select Board as a nominee to fill a Planning Board vacancy. Noting Mr. Thomas’ landslide defeat to “newcomer” Parker Happ, the Independent offered a rare opinion:

“Neither Thomas nor any of the 10 people who voted brought up what would appear to be an obvious conflict of interest in having someone write or edit stories about a board on which he sits, or how potential conflicts would be addressed if he were selected.“

This was disingenuous of Ms. Gambon, who authored the piece. While the Select Board was in Executive Session, Ms. Gambon and Mr. Thomas had a conversation in which Mr. Thomas relayed that he’d received a verbal opinion from the State Ethics Commission that there was no conflict of interest.

While it is true that it didn’t come up in the interview, it is ironic that the Independent is suddenly interested in conflicts of interest when they so clearly have one of their own.

We don’t harbor any ill feelings toward the Hopkinton Independent. As we’ve stated publicly and on the record, we believe local journalists serve a very important function in town, plus rival newspapers should strive to maintain some camaraderie. However, we must admit that we hope that the Independent will step up and challenge some of the serious problems that exist in our town, and not choose to turn their heads the other way.