THE ANN ARBOR Indepdendent accepts no advertising from local, county or state government, local universities or the Ann Arbor Public Schools. It is a policy that takes direct aim at bolstering the newspaper’s editorial independence. The Indy is the only local newspaper with such a policy.

There have been increasing concerns within the news industry about balancing budgets and journalism values. In other words, there is increased pressure to report less aggressively or accurately about advertisers.

Advertisers often also bring pressure to bear upon newspaper owners and editors by threatening to stop advertising unless a newspaper ignores a news event which is unfavorable to the advertiser. When that advertiser is the city, county or state government, there arises the threat of compromising the public’s need to know.

Knowing where city government spends its advertising dollars helps news consumers understand the connections between local news outlets and local government.

The city’s fiscal year runs from July 1-June 30. Between July 1, 2010 and December 19, 2013—a period of 30 months—the City of Ann Arbor spent $380,692 dollars on advertising in local publications and on one local news blog. According to advertising professionals, $380,692 is a small sum of money for a City the size of Ann Arbor to spend over the course of 30 months on media buys to communicate with residents about news, programs and services.

The high percentage of that total spent on a single print media outlet raises serious questions. Are Ann Arbor officials allocating adequate money to communicate effectively with the city’s residents? Are they taking advantage of a wide enough variety of media outlets? How are results measured?

City officials rely heavily on the Community Television Network (CTN) and in 2012 CTN funding was $1.8 million dollars, primarily from cable fees and state funding. The bulk of that money ($1 million dollars) goes toward paying staff salaries. However, while residents and the state pay the bill for this communication outlet, CTN’s total viewership is not measured. Thus, it’s unclear whether CTN programming is an effective tool in communicating with the city’s residents.

In Ann Arbor’s 2013 budget, the Parks Department has $46,000 set aside for advertising.  Ann Arbor budgets money to pick up its own leaves. The 2013 Budget Performance Report reveals that Ann Arbor officials budgeted $9,000 for advertising the clean-up of leaves from its own property. To date, $2,256 of the $9,000 allocated has been used.

Meanwhile, the city department charged with overseeing 326 units of affordable housing units set aside no money in its total $804,000 budget for advertising in 2013.

In 2011, the City of Austin spent $336,000 advertising in The Austin Statesman newspaper and $138,000 on television advertising. In that year, Austin spent more than $1.4 million dollars on advertising and used more than three dozen outlets to spread the city’s news about its programs and services to residents.

This is a list of the print newspapers and magazines in which the City of Ann Arbor advertised over the past 30 months:

AnnArbor.com

The Ann Arbor Observer

The Ann magazine

The Michigan Daily

A2Journal

Metro Parent Publishing

Michigan Metro Times

MLive

Washtenaw County Legal News

The Toledo Blade

 

City officials also advertised on the local online news blog AnnArborChronicle.com. Both graphs above show that the majority of the $380,692 was spent with one publication: The Ann Arbor Observer.  Between July 2010 and December 2013, Ann Arbor officials spent $203,067 on advertising in the monthly tabloid. That amount accounted for 54 percent of the total spent over the period examined.

At the same time, city officials spent a fraction of that amount advertising in the twice weekly A2Journal and the twice weekly AnnArbor.com.

Ann Arbor Observer co-owner John Hilton said the ad money from city sources amounts to a small percentage of the company’s total ad revenue each year.

The Ann Arbor Observer’s coverage of local politics routinely ruffles the feathers of candidates who feel the tabloid publishes little of substance on local politics and rarely challenges incumbents on the issues. More than one local candidate who was asked to comment on the quality of the monthly newspaper’s coverage of elections and local government alleged the coverage is “biased” in favor of the status quo.

James Leonard, a local freelance writer who frequently writes up the tabloid’s August primary election series, has earned the enmity of some who have run for local office.

“He completely misquotes people,” said one. “I don’t know why or how, but it happens and there’s no way to correct it before the election.”

The Observer prints corrections, but candidate coverage of primary elections comes out days before voters go to the polls. If the coverage is inaccurate—and multiple candidates for local office alleged that it often is—the damage is done. A correction published in September does little more than satisfy the newspaper’s legal obligations.

One former elected official has sworn off participating in interviews by The Ann Arbor Observer.

One of the co-owners of The Observer is Patricia Garcia, whose partner, developer Dennis Dahlmann, is a frequent contributor in local political races. Dahlmann recently purchased the old YMCA lot on Fifth Avenue for $5.25 million dollars. Multiple Council members to whose campaigns Dahlmann donated in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 primary elections voted in favor of the sale of the property to his company. Those Council members included Ward 1 Council members Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere, Ward 4 Council member Jack Eaton and Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin.

While The Observer covered each of those campaigns for local office in 2011, 2012 and 2013, there was no mention of Dahlmann’s political contributions or his personal/financial connection to the tabloid’s publisher.

While the AnnArborChronicle.com received just $18,130 from the city for advertising over the course of the past 30 months, that amount represented a significant percentage of the site’s total revenue over the same time period. In recent interviews, the site’s Publisher, Mary Morgan, has pegged her company’s gross revenue at around $100,000 per year. Washtenaw County is a regular advertiser on the site, as well.

This means that the online AnnArborChronicle.com earns almost 9 percent of its revenue from ads paid for by city and county government, both beats the news site chronicles extensively. The site’s model includes little original reporting and no investigative reporting. Instead, the AnnArborChronicle.com focuses on recording what was said by whom at government meetings.