Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steve Farnham, a resident of Plainfield.
If you read a recent Seven Days article about flooding and other hard times at the Times Argus, you might be tempted to feel sorry for the plight of that once-venerable central Vermont news rag. However, in this particular observer’s opinion, many of the TA’s injuries have been self-inflicted:
After raising the receiver to my ear and saying “Hello,” the telemarketer on the other end dove immediately into a sales pitch for the Times Argus: She told me that I “qualified” for a “limited time offer” for a 13 weeks’ subscription for only $37. Knowing that 13 weeks is exactly a quarter year, and that $37 is exactly a quarter of the (then) annual subscription rate of $148, I was at a total loss for why this rate was particularly “special”.
At first, I tried to clarify that smidgen of basic math for her. “No!” she insisted, explaining that this trial subscription would not cost $148, but rather only $37. Each effort to explain the math to her was met with yet another emphatic exclamation identical to its predecessor.
Finally, out of desperation, I asked from where she was calling. The reply was from somewhere in Oregon. “Well, that explains it,” I thought.“ If she was calling from some telemarketing business in India, she would know her math. It would be her dialect which would be incomprehensible.”
“So how’s the weather in Oregon,” I asked, to which she replied with generous detail. “Do you have any idea where you’re calling?” I asked. She did not. “So you sit in a box with a phone and a computer terminal, and speak to every person the computer dials up for you?” She confirmed that such was the essence of it. “Well, I’m in Vermont…” I began, which required a bit of explanation that Vermont is a state, not merely in one.
“Getting back to your reason for calling,” I continued, “Why would I take your introductory offer to the Times Argus, when I already subscribe?” If memory serves, the conversation ended quickly after that.
Much to my girlfriend’s consternation, back when was I receiving the Times Argus (motor route delivery), I always weighed the Sunday edition. Without fail it was 16 to 24 ounces. Once the inserts (read: useless garbage) were removed, it never tipped the scale at more than 8. Let us not forget that plenty of the real estate in that remaining 8 ounces was filled with more (nearly as useless) advertising or classifieds.
In the interest in saving trees, conservation, and all that is good environmentalism, I called the Times Argus office to see if I could “opt out” of the inserts. Again, I found myself entangled with some dimwit who could not understand my intent. No, I did not wish to encumber my delivery person with the task of removing the inserts for me. I simply wanted to receive an edition into which they had not been inserted in the first place. My goal was to reduce the production and distribution of garbage, not to shirk or re-assign the responsibility of discarding it.
As competent reporters and other staff continued their (usually) involuntary exodus, and were replaced with inexperienced newbies (or replaced with nobody), the volume of quality, useful and local content continued to diminish until the Times Argus had shriveled to a typo-filled shell of its former self. And “shell,” I angrily emphasize, is precisely how the Times Argus used its publication: The junk inserts always arrived in pristine condition, because they were neatly wrapped in (and well protected by) the part I was paying for, which often arrived torn, soggy or otherwise rendered outright worthless. Mind you, the Times Argus never was The New York Times, but at one time, it was a perfectly respectable publication, which seemed interested in meeting the needs of its central Vermont readers, including this one.
My heart goes out to the workers who remain at the Argus, as I am certain most are a dedicated bunch, trying as best as they can, and the flood must have been a disastrous setback. It must be a bit like dairy farming: if you want conditions to change, just wait a day or two, and they almost certainly will… get worse. Regardless, when it comes to the print edition, management at the Times Argus seems to have done more than enough to destroy the paper on its own. It didn’t need a flood to do that.
I have often thought about what it would take to produce a good local paper. For starters:
- It would serve its readers first. Advertisers and sponsors would submit to the needs and preferences of the readership.
- Advertising would respect, not deceive, insult, lie to or abuse the reader, nor would it occupy an immodest amount of space.
- Readers could opt out of any or all inserts for no extra charge. For example, I might like those from Nelson Hardware, or Guy’s Farm and Yard, but I do not ever want one from Home Despot, Sprawl*Mart, Kinney Drug, nor any Mafioso automobile dealer. (Is “Mafioso automobile dealer” redundant?)
- And of course, editors would not be anal about space allocated to cartoons, letters and op-eds.
Would such a newspaper cost more? Probably. Would I pay? You bet. Will management at the Times Argus take heed of my advice? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath. Since I long ago gave up on them, they’ll never be apprised of my thoughts anyway (unless they read them here).
