By Ryan Michaels | Editor-in-Chief, The Maine Mirror
September 15, 2026
The Correspondence Accountability Project creates a standardized way to document how press inquiries are handled. Today, The Maine Mirror is publishing the system’s first audit.
There is a sentence readers encounter constantly in journalism:
Did not respond to a request for comment.
Sometimes that sentence tells readers everything they need to know about the correspondence.
Sometimes it doesn’t.
A source might acknowledge an email without answering the questions. Someone might answer three questions and leave two unanswered. An organization might decline to comment. It might refer the reporter somewhere else. A response might arrive in five minutes, five days or after publication.
All of those outcomes are different.
Yet once the reporting is published, much of that correspondence disappears behind the finished article.
The Maine Mirror wants to make more of that process visible.
Today, we are introducing the Correspondence Accountability Project, or CAP—a standardized system for documenting what happens between a journalist asking questions and a correspondence reaching its conclusion.
And rather than merely explaining how CAP is supposed to work, we are putting it to work here for the first time.
The first correspondence being audited is our own exchange with the Gorham Democrats.
First, what is CAP?
CAP evaluates two things independently:
Responsiveness and transparency.
Responsiveness asks how the recipient communicated.
Was the inquiry acknowledged? How quickly? Were follow-ups addressed? Did communication continue when clarification was needed? If the recipient wasn’t the appropriate source, was useful information eventually provided about where the inquiry should go?
Transparency asks something different.
Did the correspondence actually provide substantive information about what was asked? Were direct questions answered? Were explanations supplied? What material questions remained unresolved?
Those two measurements are deliberately separated.
Someone can respond immediately without answering a question.
Someone can take longer and ultimately provide a comprehensive answer.
Neither circumstance should be reduced to a simple “responded” or “did not respond.”
CAP is intended to preserve the difference.
What CAP does not do
CAP does not determine guilt, innocence, truthfulness, character or motive.
An unanswered question does not establish that the premise behind the question is true.
Silence is not evidence of wrongdoing.
A referral is not automatically avoidance.
A refusal to comment is not proof of concealment.
And disagreement with The Maine Mirror is not a transparency failure.
CAP evaluates the documented correspondence.
Nothing more.
The complete methodology governing CAP is published separately through BTM-004, including the master instructions used to conduct an audit so readers can inspect the standards themselves.
Now we can apply them.
CAP AUDIT NO. 1: GORHAM DEMOCRATS
The first CAP audit begins with an email The Maine Mirror sent at 10:06 a.m. on July 8, 2026.
The inquiry concerned our reporting surrounding Graham Platner and public communications by the Gorham Democrats.
The Maine Mirror identified two observations.
First, during a review of the Gorham Democrats’ Facebook page, an earlier post announcing Platner’s postponed appearance appeared to no longer be publicly available.
Second, following publication of our reporting, the Facebook account used by The Maine Mirror’s editor appeared unable to access the Gorham Democrats’ Facebook page.
The wording matters.
The inquiry presented those circumstances as appearances requiring clarification, rather than asserting that intentional deletion or blocking had already been established.
Five questions followed:
- Was the original postponement post intentionally removed or otherwise made unavailable to the public?
- If so, what was the reason for its removal or change in availability?
- Was the Facebook account intentionally blocked from the Gorham Democrats’ page?
- If so, what was the reason for that decision?
- Was there any additional context the organization wanted readers to know?
The Maine Mirror requested a response, if possible, by 5 p.m. July 9 and expressly stated that a later response could still be incorporated into subsequent reporting.
The response
At 10:53 a.m. on July 8—approximately 47 minutes after the original email—the Gorham Democrats responded.
Their response was brief:
“I’ve forwarded your request for comment to the Maine Democratic Party.”
That email matters to the CAP analysis.
The inquiry was not ignored.
The recipient acknowledged it quickly and identified another organization as the destination for the request.
But none of the five substantive questions was answered in that response.
And that is exactly where CAP’s distinction between responsiveness and transparency becomes useful.
The correspondence remained unresolved
The July exchange did not produce substantive answers to the five questions.
More than two months later, on September 14, The Maine Mirror returned to the correspondence and offered another opportunity to respond or provide context.
This time, the Gorham Democrats responded within approximately two minutes, again directing the inquiry to the Maine Democratic Party.
The Maine Mirror then asked whether there was a specific contact or email address that should receive the request.
Approximately two minutes later, the Gorham Democrats supplied:
At that point, something important had changed.
The underlying questions still had not been answered.
But the Gorham Democrats had now clearly identified where they believed the inquiry should go.
The correspondence with that organization had reached a natural endpoint.
It was time to audit it.
The First CAP Finding
The completed correspondence contained five substantive questions.
Answered: 0.
Partially answered: 0.
Declined: 0.
Collectively referred: 5.
Remaining substantively unanswered within this correspondence: 5.
Those numbers alone, however, don’t tell the entire story.
Responsiveness: MODERATE
CAP Audit No. 1 assigns the Gorham Democrats:
MODERATE RESPONSIVENESS
That finding recognizes the positive portions of the record.
The organization acknowledged the original inquiry. When The Maine Mirror returned to the correspondence in September, responses arrived within minutes. And when asked where the inquiry should specifically be directed, an actionable Maine Democratic Party press contact was supplied.
Those actions deserve credit.
But responsiveness under CAP also considers substantive engagement.
None of the five underlying questions was answered within this correspondence.
The result therefore falls between two inaccurate characterizations.
It would be inaccurate to say the Gorham Democrats simply didn’t respond.
They did.
It would also be inaccurate to characterize their communications as substantively answering the inquiry.
They didn’t.
Moderate Responsiveness preserves both facts.
Transparency: LIMITED
The first CAP audit assigns:
LIMITED TRANSPARENCY
Some useful information emerged from the correspondence—most notably where the Gorham Democrats believed the inquiry should be directed.
But the correspondence produced little substantive information concerning the matters The Maine Mirror originally asked about.
The record does not tell us whether the Facebook post was intentionally removed.
It does not tell us why its availability changed.
It does not establish whether the Facebook account was intentionally blocked.
And it does not establish why any restriction may have occurred.
That leaves the substantive questions unresolved.
It does not tell us why they remained unresolved.
That distinction is critical.
CAP does not transform missing answers into evidence.
Final disposition: REFERRED
The final disposition of CAP Audit No. 1 is REFERRED.
The Gorham Democrats ultimately directed The Maine Mirror to the Maine Democratic Party and provided its press contact.
Accordingly, the Gorham Democrats portion of the inquiry is considered CLOSED.
That does not mean the underlying questions have been resolved.
It means this particular correspondence has reached its natural conclusion.
(CAP Audit No. 1: The Maine Mirror Correspondence Accountability Project Summary for the Gorham Democrats correspondence covering July 8 through September 14, 2026. The standardized one-page record documents five substantive questions, zero substantive answers, five collectively referred questions, Moderate Responsiveness, Limited Transparency, a final disposition of Referred and a Closed correspondence status.)
What this first CAP audit establishes—and what it doesn’t
CAP requires us to document both.
The correspondence establishes that The Maine Mirror submitted five substantive questions.
It establishes that the Gorham Democrats acknowledged the inquiry.
It establishes that they stated the request had been forwarded to the Maine Democratic Party.
It establishes that none of the five questions received a substantive answer within this correspondence.
And it establishes that, when contacted again in September, the organization communicated promptly and ultimately supplied a specific Maine Democratic Party press address.
There are also things this correspondence cannot establish.
It cannot establish whether the original Facebook post was intentionally removed.
It cannot establish the reason it became unavailable.
It cannot establish definitively whether The Maine Mirror’s Facebook access was intentionally restricted, who initiated such a restriction or why.
It also cannot independently establish that the Maine Democratic Party actually received the original July referral merely because the Gorham Democrats stated that it had been forwarded.
And CAP does not fill those evidentiary gaps with assumptions.
Then we closed the record
CAP isn’t intended to create perpetual correspondence.
Once an exchange reaches its natural conclusion, the process includes something equally important:
closure.
On September 14, The Maine Mirror sent the Gorham Democrats the completed CAP finding.
The email thanked the organization for its communication, explained the distinction between the responsiveness and transparency findings, stated that CAP evaluates correspondence rather than motive or wrongdoing, and provided the CAP Summary.
Most importantly, it said:
No additional response was requested or expected.
(The September 14, 2026 closure email completing CAP Audit No. 1. The Maine Mirror informed the Gorham Democrats of the CAP findings, explained that CAP evaluates documented correspondence rather than motive or wrongdoing, referenced the attached CAP Summary and expressly stated that no additional response was requested or expected.)
And with that:
CAP Audit No. 1 was closed.
Why we’re publishing all of this
There is an obvious question:
Why go this far over an email chain?
Because accountability should work in both directions.
If The Maine Mirror publishes that someone didn’t answer our questions, readers should be able to determine whether that’s an accurate characterization.
If we say someone responded, readers should be able to understand what “responded” actually means.
If we criticize transparency, there should be a defined standard behind that criticism.
And if someone communicates promptly, professionally and substantively—even when their answers contradict our reporting—they should receive credit for doing so.
CAP creates that record.
It also puts The Maine Mirror under scrutiny.
Our questions become part of the record.
Our wording becomes part of the record.
The opportunities we provided for response become part of the record.
And our characterization of the recipient’s conduct can be compared against the evidence.
That’s not a side effect.
It’s part of the design.
This is CAP Audit No. 1
There will be more.
Some may result in High Responsiveness and High Transparency.
Some may document no response whatsoever.
Others will probably look much like this first audit: a mixed record in which some aspects of communication deserve recognition while substantive questions remain unresolved.
The subject will change.
The standards should not.
The Maine Mirror has published those standards through BTM-004, and future CAP audits should be judged against them—including by the people and organizations we audit.
Because CAP is not supposed to tell readers whom to trust.
It is supposed to provide a better record.
What did we ask?
What came back?
What was answered?
What wasn’t?
What can the evidence establish?
What can’t it establish?
Today, for the first time, we’ve put that process into practice.
CAP Audit No. 1 is now on the record.
Discover more from The Maine Mirror
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.