I confess that I have no idea what to think about a couple of posts I read today on journalists revealing more of their private background.
First, William Powers of National Journal suggests news organizations ought to use their Web sites to give readers more background on their journalists. At CBS’ Public Eye, Brian Montopoli says he doesn’t see how that could work or how much value it would have.
What do you think?
– Sherry
It occurs to me that I haven’t explained why you see a somewhat new lineup of faces on the left side of this page.
After a bit of reorganization of the news staff, we’ve made a few changes in the newsroom’s senior leadership team. Joining this group are Kirk Seminoff, our sports editor, and Michael Roehrman, copy desk chief.
In our new staff structure, the folks on this page are department heads, responsible for the major departments in the newsroom. With the changes we’ve made in this team, the group will be able to speak to issues from sports to features, news decisions to headlines.
– Sherry
The Editor’s Desk got an email from a happy reader who liked Brent Castillo’s column this week on the failed federal immigration bill.
Hearing from a happy reader is always a good thing. But his email, Brent’s column, and the many news stories and opinion columns I’ve read on the immigration issue leave me deeply concerned about how free-wheeling we too often are with labels. And not just "we, the media," but "We, the People." In this case, the labels are the age-old "conservatives" and "liberals."
I see an assumption that "conservatives" believe this about immigration and "liberals" believe that.
I don’t believe for a minute that most people can package their beliefs so easily in one of those wrappers. The immigration issue is so complicated that drawing an outdated dividing line of liberal/conservative is unsophisticated at best and dangerously divisive and unfair at worst.
I see those words in our news stories, too, and am reminded I need to push our reporters and editors not to fall into the morass of sticking labels on people. Yes, it’s a lot more expedient than understanding the complexity of someone’s beliefs.
But shortcuts rarely lead to a better understanding of a complex issue. And promoting understanding ought to be one of a newspaper’s highest callings.
– Sherry
Part of the Eagle’??s stylebook entry on quotations reads "??In The Eagle, a quotation must be a true rendition of what was said."? In last Saturday’s paper, we failed that rule in a headline.
Over a story about Judge Wesley Brown turning 100 we used the headline "?I still learn daily."? What Brown said, however, was "??I learn something daily."
It was a regrettable mistake and we will make every effort to be more vigilant in the future.
-?? Michael