This seems to have been a particularly busy week for the Inbox, and I want to do a better job of sharing incoming questions and comments I’ve received.
I’ve had several people ask or email wanting to know about our policy of allowing readers to comment on stories at Kansas.com. The gist of the questions is that some reader comments posted on news stories are rude, accusatory or otherwise inappropriate.
The comment feature certainly has abuses at times. But I believe the benefits far outweigh those abuses. For most of its history, news coverage has been a one-way street of news organizations "talking at" readers. The only way to talk back (publicly, anyway) was a letter to the editor, for the most part. But the Internet age has truly opened the gates of communication about news, so conversations can happen from readers to the newspaper, readers among each other, and the newspaper to readers.
We hope conversations remain civil in the online forums and comment posts, and most do. I read the reader comments as often as possible, for feedback on news coverage as well as ideas on what to do for future stories. Every comment feature allows users to report a post as a violation of the terms of use. In many cases, the offending comments are removed. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. Is it vastly better than the "old way" of doing news? Absolutely.
We’re still figuring out the best stories to use comment features on, and which ones to avoid. As we’re learning and adjusting, one thing seems clear: It would be wrong to shut down the conversation because a few people lack manners.
On another note, reader Ruthanne says she’s kept up with Greensburg news through our Web site, and asks if we will keep publishing news and photos of the recovery. Ruthanne, count on it. The Greensburg story is far from over, and we’ll you and others apprised of recovery and progress for some time to come.
I also have an email from a reader who says he heard The Eagle sends letters to people who were quoted in news stories to ask if the stories were accurate. He was quoted in a story and didn’t get any such letter. Yes, I do send those letters. We send three a week, and not one for every story. These "accuracy letters" are intended as a sampling of how we’re doing.
The letters ask if the facts were right, the headline was fair, the reporter or photographer was polite and professional, and the story balanced and fair. I also ask what sections, topics or features the person reads most. Anyone who was quoted in a story but didn’t get a letter is always free to tell me how we did — if you want an actual accuracy letter to fill out, I’ll be glad to send you one.
The vast majority of letters are returned with positive feedback. When that’s not the case, I share the response with the reporter and editor, and if a correction is necessary, we publish one. I know people are busy, and I always appreciate them taking time to respond to the letter and tell us how we’re doing.
And finally, the best email of the week asks if I actually read email, with a creative wager that I don’t. I read every email and either reply myself, or ask the appropriate newsroom staffer with better information to respond. The only exception is email that is clearly spam. So Kevin, this is for you. Start singing.
Sherry
