Let’s get a few facts on the table right at the top: I’m a retired journalist and was interim Managing Editor of The Leader for a short while after 25 years as publisher of another small weekly newspaper in Oregon.

I believe “social media” is neither social nor media and is toxic to us as individuals and as a species, but I also believe in free speech.

After The Leader published stories regarding ethics complaints filed by a local citizen against Mayor Dave Faber, the newspaper was accused by associates of the mayor of violating journalistic standards:

It was said the ethics complaints were filed by a crank, were completely without merit and unworthy of a news story. The Leader should have researched the citizen who filed the complaints and then buried the story because she claimed to be a witch, advocated for Trump, and said nice things about members of Proud Boys, a right-wing organization occasionally identified with violence. She had filed similar meritless complaints against public officials in the past.

The Leader published these opinions.

But an officially filed six element ethics complaint against our mayor is “news.” It is not the role of the newspaper to prejudge an official complaint nor the person making that complaint. That job belongs to the legal process, in this case a hearings officer measuring ascertainable facts against existing law.

Should the paper have waited until the hearings officer made a determination before publishing a story? No, there is value in timeliness and in public knowledge during the process.

As to the history of the woman who complained, that information is pertinent and valuable to the public, if not the legal process, and should be forthcoming.

Since this debate over what should and should not be published began, the hearings officer has found four of the six complaints against the mayor were without adequate substance, and that two of the complaints could move forward to the next stage of consideration.

The survival of two complaints does not mean any ethics violations occurred, simply that more facts need to be taken into account. The newspaper reported on this phase of the process.

And if the two remaining complaints are dismissed, it will be the job of the newspaper to publish that news preferably “above the fold” and on page one where the original story first appeared.

It is an increasingly common argument, from left and right, that “disinformation” or “misinformation” or “yellow journalism” or “fake news” from the “lame-stream media” should be repressed.

But if this happens, a cornerstone of democracy would be lost. That danger was recognized by those who founded this country. Thomas Jefferson defended the “marketplace of ideas.” We have the First Amendment, and “Freedom of Information” is a guarantee within our contract with government.

Newspapers and TV and now social media are how that free speech is conveyed.

On Facebook, the mayor accused The Leader of “yellow journalism,” an old phrase accusing journalists of sensationalizing for the purpose of selling newspapers. It was said that The Leader violated standards of journalism.

Interesting that the post on social media was about “standards of journalism,” while everyone knows there are no such standards about what is posted on Facebook, or (X), etc.

Social media amplifies points of view or chaos, nonsense or the truth depending on one’s point of view. It’s designed to maximize our engagement, which means keeping readers in a heightened state of reactivity. Outrage is cultivated through exaggeration, lies, theatrics, “alternative facts,” etc.

But social media is still a mechanism for spreading “speech,” and for that reason, must be allowed to have its own impact. The quote frequently (and incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say — and will defend to the death your right to say it,” is a foundation of our own democracy.

Ultimately, every individual will pay most attention to speech that is “trusted.” In fact, that’s really what a “newspaper” has to sell, at least as news: a promise of credibility. Not so much that every fact is always accurate, but a promise that what is written is believed to be “true” at the time of publication. Journalists work at that.

At one time, we all believed there was such a thing as “a truth.” Now we know that truth can be distorted by facts, and we realize that everyone has recognized and unrecognized “confirmation biases.”

Truth depends on context for facts to have meaning. Each of us supplies much of that context, and it is not the same for every one of us. Understanding takes time and is not hastened by repression of information.

Ethics complaints against the mayor will be adjudicated by a hearings officer. The process, as well as the outcome, will be described in this newspaper. It will take time for the whole story to unfold.

Erik Dolson is a part-time resident of Port Townsend. More can be found at erikdolson.substack.com.