Contrary to what you may have read in the County Supervisors’ newsletter, the local press is still here.

Erik Cushman and Sara Rubin here, writing in Monterey County Now’s newsletter with a message about a new local newsletter. We were happy to receive an inaugural email newsletter last week from the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, via the County’s communications director. We’re fans of newsletters and generally think that more information is better—we get similar regular newsletters from a variety of local governments, including the cities of Monterey, Seaside and Carmel, the Monterey County Office of Education and Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, just to name a few. Our reporters read them, and we sometimes get story ideas; occasionally we get a good laugh. To the county supervisors we say congrats, and welcome to the 21st century. 

However, we were taken aback to read Supervisor Glenn Church’s opening essay in this first-ever “Supervisors Snapshot” newsletter, proclaiming wrongly that local journalism is dead. 

“Just a few years ago, newspapers were a reliable source of news on all levels of local government,” Church writes by way of welcome. “There was a time when newspapers were found in almost every community. The Monterey County Weekly (originally Coast Weekly), largely based on the Peninsula, carried county news…Today, we are left with the print media as a shadow of itself. There is a void, a news desert that is being filled by social media.”

Church’s use of the past tense is inaccurate. The facts are that today, Monterey County Weekly (and our digital properties, Monterey County Now—this newsletter included) cover more local news than at any time in our 36-year history. With a 10-person newsroom (thanks to our most recent addition from the California Local News Fellowship), we have our largest-ever editorial staff.

We distribute 20,000 copies of the print edition every week from Aromas to King City and points in between. According to our most recent circulation audit, 96 percent of those papers are picked up. More than 31,000 people subscribe to our daily newsletter. 

And just a moment to brag: The work of the Weekly’s professional editors, reporters, photographers and designers has been recognized by journalism peers for more honors this past year than at any time in our history. At the California Journalism Awards in June, we received awards for coverage of local government, environmental coverage, investigative reporting, feature writing, design, food writing, health reporting and this newsletter, recognized as the best in our class statewide. We also proudly took home first place for General Excellence. 

Of course some local news outlets have been shrinking or disappearing—something we’ve covered in the Weekly—but Church lumping in the Weekly with a list of defunct newspapers is simply wrong. 

The great irony is that the supes’ newsletter goes on to cover a variety of topics that the Weekly has, in fact, covered. There’s a piece about the future of funding for county road repairs (you can read our story here) and about eucalyptus tree removal (in the Weekly here). There is a piece about federal funding for the Family Justice Center in King City (we began covering the initiative in 2022) and a mention of vacancies for appointment to boards and commissions. There’s a piece about a memorial to braceros, something we’ve covered for years, including an obituary about the leader of a local movement, and a recent official recognition from the County Supervisors. There’s a piece about MST’s SURF! Busway project, covered extensively in our pages in recent months (with this recent story about the Coastal Commission's approval), and an essay about what Supreme Court decisions mean for homelessness. There’s a story about the county’s short-term rental ordinance (at long last), and an update on the Salinas Regional Soccer Complex and vision for a BMX skate park.

That’s a long list, just to prove the point that Church, strangely, seems to have missed: The local press is indeed covering the issues that matter to our county supervisors. 

What Church has done is exactly what he laments is taking place on social media: Making claims without any evidence that are easily debunked as false, put them out there in the ether without regard to the effects of the misinformation. (In a conversation about his piece, Church says he didn’t intend to lump the Weekly into that list, and his intended point was that in general, print media is facing tough times.) 

We agree with his basic premise that more information is better. “Simply put, democracy can’t survive in a vacuum of information,” Church wrote. “People who are not informed cannot cast informed votes or even follow the intricacies of political debate.” 

Government agency newsletters are a great idea, and we particularly like the long list of opportunities to show up and engage included in “Supervisors Snapshot.” But Church’s suggestion that this newsletter will fill the gap created by diminished local media is wildly off-base. Government agencies should tell their own story, yes—and local press should report on it too. 

We know we can’t cover everything, and yes, we miss some stories. (If you have a story idea—and this invitation goes out especially to all five county supervisors, too—please reach out and let us know.) But Church’s inaccurate portrayal of the state of the local press, plus his implication that a newsletter is a substitute for a robust local press, compelled us to speak up.

Meanwhile, if Church is concerned about the state of local media, we invite him to join more than 3,500 friends and neighbors who are Weekly Insiders, readers who voluntarily contribute financially to help ensure an independent press covering local issues for years to come.