For many years Working Waterfront has been among my three favorites of the many monthly publications I receive. Unfortunately these three arrive at about the same time so I’m always faced with the dilemma of deciding which to read first. The decision, however, is becoming easier with the apparent evolution of Working Waterfront’s content.
It seems there is a growing divergence between mission and content that amounts to a gradual shift in focus and, therefore, the publication’s appeal and pertinence. The jury is still out whether this is a changed perception resulting from my being more closely involved with, so more keenly aware of, issues and topics germane to WWF in recent years or a veritable shift in WWF’s focus and quality of content. Three recent events point to the latter, two of which are outlined here.
First, I am angered by WW’s decision to print a July editorial [letter to the editor] submitted by Mr. Parker from California and I question WWF’s intent for doing so. The [letter] presented no questions or opinions on any topics or issues facing coastal communities but focused instead on character assassination of Mr. Hill. While Mr. Hill has rightfully presented himself as a spokesman for the Maine Land Bank Program and has expressed reasons underlying aspects of the Program, he has never, to the best of my knowledge, presented himself as a spokesman for Chebeague Island or any other community. While I certainly believe everyone including Mr. Parker has a right to his opinion, publications like WWF must decide responsibly on what should and should not be printed in editorial sections. Given the lack of content in the referenced [letter], WWF did not exercise poor judgment – it exercised no judgment at all.
Second, I find WWF’s decision to accept even limited real estate advertising to be unconscionable. An increasing number of fishermen and island residents are being held hostage to ever-rising property assessments spurred by Maine’s hot real estate market. Unless “limited” refers to true “affordable housing,” why have any hand in furthering the demise of Maine’s already endangered coastal communities and way of life? If it is a matter of economics, perhaps the lesson learned by ISPs bears repeating here – many users opt to pay for services in order to avoid unwanted ads. Why not run a survey to find out? WWF just may find the same to be true.
I fear if Island Institute and WWF succumb to economic forces and lose perspective. Such a shift will do far more harm than good to those whose way of life these purport to support. Nobody’s perfect so I’m hoping recent events are simply aberrations that will be reversed and not signs of things to come. I’d welcome facing a three-way tie once again!
Bette Tellinghuisen
Chebeague Island