A former editor once demanded that every story a reporter wrote must contain an element of conflict. It is what reporters do: find two (or more) opposing viewpoints and write about  where the disagreement lay.
    It's not always as easy as it sounds, but it has never been easier than it has in recent weeks when it comes to writing about what is happening at South Portland City Hall.
    Elected officials and the professional staff has been under enormous scrutiny over a rapidly expanding number of issues facing the city. The interesting part is that scrutiny is not coming just from the press, but from other elected officials and staff.
    The press has been there covering the conflict and applying its own scrutiny, but often the role has been that of  passive receivers of information sent by those with agendas we do not always understand let alone agendas consistent with our own.
    When we receive gossip, rumors or even facts, whispered and off-the-record, it is easy to be seduced by the power of sharing a secret or knowing more than the average joe. Unless one is careful, such secret information can have a corrosive effect on the role of reporters. Ironically,  a relationship based upon a deception (i.e. "You didn't hear it from me, but...") takes on the trappings of a relationship based on trust. (i.e. "I like so and so...she tells me what's really going on.) A secret can create a bond if one is not skeptical of why secrets are being told in the first place
    Reporters rely on information told in confidence because it allows us to investigate issues we may otherwise have been unaware. But to rely on such information as if it were the whole story is a dangerous leap to make.
    The current controversy at City Hall will eventually be resolved, whether in fireworks or a fizzle remain to be seen. But in the mean time those who work on behalf of the citizens of South Portland ought to be reminded they are playing on the same team.
                –Ward Peck