Connect with us

Alaska

Veteran Anchorage TV reporter and anchor Maria Downey announces retirement after decades of Alaska journalism

Published

on

Veteran Anchorage TV reporter and anchor Maria Downey announces retirement after decades of Alaska journalism


Longtime Anchorage journalist and news anchor Maria Downey has announced that she will retire at the end of the month, capping more than 40 years of work in Alaska.

Downey moved to Alaska from Florida with her husband in 1981, first working as a reporter for TV station KINO before moving four years later to KTUU, now known as Alaska’s News Source, where she’s been an anchor for almost four decades. Her last broadcast at Alaska’s News Source is set for Jan. 26.

Downey says she moved to Alaska as oil money began flowing in, and the state began to see a rapid rise in wealth and population.

Advertisement

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Maria Downey: It was a great time to be a reporter because it was the boom period. So there was no hesitation to take a private jet someplace, believe it or not. CNN or NBC, whatever the affiliates were at the time, would not hesitate to spend the money. We had a helicopter at Channel 13 before many other local TV stations had it. It was a good time to report because the money was there.

Wesley Early: Can you tell me a bit about what some of your first stories were when you came to the state?

MD: I don’t remember the exact stories. But I remember my favorite stories because I loved the rich traditions and cultures of Alaska. So I typically would really try to focus on those stories. But I was also the court reporter. So there were days I was in court, and you couldn’t have cameras in the courtroom back then. So picture this: a full day in a courtroom, taking notes, and then typically a very long, and I think about it now, probably very boring, stand up (on-camera live interview) outside of the courthouse, because we couldn’t be inside. But my favorite stories from that to this day are the rich cultures and traditions of Alaska.

WE: So tell me about when you became an anchor? I imagine at the time, there weren’t a lot of female anchors in Alaska.

Advertisement

MD: Well there typically was. Usually the male anchor was called the “lead” anchor, which we really don’t have any longer. But when I started at Channel 13, I was mostly reporting and then I did a morning program called Good Morning Alaska. I did some co-anchoring there. But when I went to Channel 2 as a reporter, within six weeks, I was anchoring. So that was really a good move.

WE: What did you like about anchoring?

MD: So I loved being able to share all the day’s news. As a reporter, I covered consumer issues and other issues that affected individuals and their families, which I liked. But at the end of the day — literally at the end of the day and my shift, anchoring — I really liked sharing all those stories, all the stories of the day in the news, so that people were aware of what was going on in their community. And in their state and sometimes nation. We didn’t do as much national news, and we still don’t do as much national news.

WE: If my math is right, that’s more than 30 years as an anchor. And one of the things I think about, especially now, is trust in the media among people is kind of lower. People are more skeptical of the news media industry. That’s kind of a position of authority and a position of trust. Have you noticed that change, how people perceive you as an anchor over the years?

MD: We’re really lucky at our station, because we’re sort of in a unique position. We’ve been the No. 1 station, and had that really good relationship with people throughout the state, for many years. So I think we have that position, not only of authority, but trust, that some local stations don’t have because they turn over so quickly. When we go to a village, we go to rural Alaska, there’s people like meeting us at the airstrip. So when you go there, and you feel that connection. We don’t get as much of that negativity. We’re kind of in a really unique position. I’m not saying we don’t get complaints at times. But I think people, when they look at their local news, they have more of that connection than they do to national news or cable news, where they give opinions and that sort of thing. That’s not our role.

Advertisement

WE: Yeah. How would you explain that difference? And how would you explain how local journalists really, more than any other type of journalist, are very invested in their local communities?

MD: Well, this is our home. I know you see people coming and going throughout the years. But when you look at Jackie (Purcell), and me and Mike (Ross), and I mean, there’s people in our newsroom who have been there, like (chief photographer) Eric Sowl, for 20 or more years, for decades. Some even for three decades. It’s our community. We’re invested in it. You see us at community events with our families. So it’s really part of our fabric, too. So it would be a disservice to do anything that’s not honest and fair to our community. I think people see that. I think they see that we’re out and about and this is our home.

WE: This may seem like an odd question, I don’t know how often you’ve thought about this, but do you think about your legacy as a journalist and what you hope people look back and think about Maria Downey as a reporter, what they think?

MD: Boy, I really don’t don’t think about it, but if… I guess you can play this years from now for my obit, right? “How do you want to be remembered?”

I hope that people will remember my work as being fair and honest and caring, because it is my home. I hope that people remember that the stories we shared were not our opinions, but facts, so they can help their families and community and their state to see through certain issues and maybe even become activists in whatever they believe to make their community better and maybe start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Looking at ways to help, whether it’s donating their time, talent, treasure. You know, the old stewardship motto. Hopefully what we’ve done, and what I’ve done throughout the years, has helped to push people toward doing what’s right for their community and helping to solve some of the problems.

Advertisement

Originally published by Alaska Public Media and republished here with permission.





Source link

Alaska

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake

Published

on

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake


An engine and firefighters from the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection’s Mat-Su Area are responding to a fire near Flat Lake.

A caller reported a fire on an island in Flat Lake, with 2 foot flame lengths and structures near by.

The engine crew responding will be shuttled by boat to the fire. The fire is currently reported as .1 acre, creeping and smoldering.

Advertisement

Additional updates will be shared as they become available.

‹ Pioneer Peak Hotshots, Gannett Glacier Crew Join Fight Against 2 Fires Near Ruby

Categories: Active Wildland Fire

Tags: #FireYear2026 #2026AKFIRESEASON, 2026 Alaska Fire Season



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules

Published

on

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules


man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

Advertisement

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska.

Katie Holmlund/AP Photo


“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

The division is appealing the decision, Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email Saturday. Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, said in an email he expected the division to appeal and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

Advertisement

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to try to regain the majority. But it’s expected to be an uphill battle in a state that President Trump won by 13 points in 2024.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom earlier this month opened an investigation into the non-Senator Sullivan’s candidacy.

Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. The sitting senator brought the situation to reporters’ attention at the Capitol earlier this month, accusing Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans” to “rig an election in their favor.” 

Dan Sullivan

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025.

Advertisement

Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo


Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican. She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state pushed back on suggestions the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

Advertisement

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” attorney Rachel Witty, with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing only age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending