2008 June | The Editor's Desk | Wichita Eagle Blogs

Monthly Archives: June 2008

PDFs of printed section fronts

June 30, 20081:59 p.m.

Robert emailed over the weekend to say thanks for adding PDFs to Kansas.com of section fronts from the printed paper. You’re welcome, Robert, we’re happy to be able to add this service for Web site users. He wonders if we could add in the Business page from the daily paper.

We’re looking at options for doing that. The process of uploading the PDFs is automated and is based on a program that knows that those pages have the same page number every day. That might be a hitch with the Business page, since it runs inside the Local & State section, which can vary in size. We’ll try to make it work. Stay tuned.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Headlines, Kansas.com, News content, Reader issues, Web/Tech | Comments Off

Reader feedback: Direct email vs. posted comments

June 27, 200812:27 p.m.

Alan, I’ve never done a formal count of phone calls/emails I get compared to comments posted on the board. A rough guess is that at least 90% to 95% come to me directly. Increasingly, those people explain that they didn’t want to post publicly. Also, I often address questions here that I get in person at community events.

I understand their point and yours about subjecting yourself to abuse by rude posters. On the other hand, when you post publicly, everyone gets the benefit of reading all of your comments. I suppose it’s a plus that more people use their real name when they email or call, and they probably wouldn’t in a posted comment. So in that regard, it’s a more personal connection for me to get direct contact vs. a post.

But posted comments allow for a multi-directional conversation. If you do post, and you feel like someone attacks you personally, flag that post and we’ll review it.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Kansas.com, News content, People, Reader issues, Web/Tech | Comments Off

Where are the Editor’s Desk bloggers?

June 27, 200812:14 p.m.

Ellie asks a pointed question, and she’s right. Our posting is spotty on this blog, and we need to do better. She says she clicked on the About link, and has “never seen a peep from those peeps.” Her chastising is on point and we’re without a good defense. We need to do better.

When I make time to post here, I get (mostly) great feedback from readers and I love the two-way conversation. The other newsroom editors also need to get in the habit of making time to post – we all do, and Sports Editor Kirk Seminoff brought this up recently. So you’re right, and I’ll take your challenge to crack the proverbial whip. And yes, I’ll also gig Jean to post a “real bio.”

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Kansas.com, News content, People, Reader issues, Web/Tech | Comments Off

Look for these changes in Eagle’s print edition

June 27, 200812:09 p.m.

Over the next week we’ll be introducing a few changes to the printed version of the paper, in some cases to make the best use of our existing news space, and in one instance because we also need to reduce expenses. Overall, these changes ought to be a plus for the majority of our readers, as we’ve looked for smarter ways to use our printed paper and Web site to take advantage of the strengths of each medium.

I’ll give you a quick overview here of what’s coming, and we’ll have reminder notes in the paper through the week to help readers find some content that has moved.

Look Sunday on the front of the Business section for business editor Tom Shine’s column explaining upcoming changes to daily and Sunday business sections. We’ll be shifting our resources to give businesspeople more local business news during the week, when they’re working, and putting less emphasis on weekend business coverage. Tom will explain more about that, and the changes that take effect starting Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, you’ll find our Neighbors community news in a new spot, on a new day. The Neighbors pages, previously published inside the Local & State section on Thursday, will run as a separate sheet, on heavier paper, in the Tuesday paper. We’ve also added color to the page.

And starting July 5, the Wichita on Wheels page will move to the Saturday paper, on the back of the Sports section, from the Sunday paper, on the back of the current Business section. Mike Berry will remind Wheels fans about this change on this week’s page.

I realize some readers will love the changes and some won’t, and we welcome your feedback.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under News content, Reader issues | Comments (2)

Birding in Texas

June 26, 20087:57 p.m.

Arlene, nope, the vacation I mentioned was not a sun-drenched beach, but thanks for asking. I took a week off to do some birding and get some general R & R at Dan and Cathy Brown’s ranch in Christoval, Texas, south of San Angelo. They’re two of the nicest people you’ll ever meet, and their ranch makes for a quiet, peaceful vacation retreat. I didn’t even miss the sand and surf.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under People, Reader issues | Comments Off

What happens when reader comments get flagged?

June 26, 20087:46 p.m.

A couple readers have asked me if an actual human being sees user comments that are flagged for questionable content, or whether those posted comments are weeded out through automated filters.

Those comments do get reviewed by a real person, who decides whether they get deleted (if already posted) or they are allowed to post (if they’re on hold before posting).

Reader comment boards on Kansas.com are not routinely reviewed by our online staff. A couple of situations can cause a comment to be flagged for review. First, if a site user finds a posted comment offensive, he or she can report it as a violation under our terms of service. One of our staff members will review comments flagged as violations and determine whether they indeed are.

Another possibility is that a comment contains a questionable word and gets caught in a filter before it posts. Those comments are held for review before they post, and again, they’re reviewed by a real person.

Sometimes the review process happens immediately. If a comment is held up in the filter while the online staff is out of the office, say, at lunch, or in a meeting, it may be withheld for an hour or so awaiting review. In the overnight hours or on weekends, the delay might be longer.

We occasionally hear from site users angry at the “censorship” of their comments. We want robust and lively discussion on our comment boards, but when users flag offensive or abusive comments, we remove them. We’re first in line among advocates of free speech. But we also expect site users to respect the responsibility that comes with it.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Kansas.com, News content, People, Reader issues | Comments Off

Guantanamo series drew mixed reaction

June 25, 20088:08 p.m.

Our Washington, DC, bureau’s series about Guantanamo detainees angered some readers who felt we were giving terrorists a forum to complain about their treatment in the U.S. prison. The bureau’s eight-month investigation found the the U.S. had imprisoned, even abused, some men who were innocent, but that point seemed to be irrelevant to some of the callers I talked to this week.

One told me that these people were all trying to kill us, and whatever treatment they got in Gitmo was deserved and justified in the name of fighting terrorism. A few readers have countered with letters published in the paper, arguing that any nation built on the rule of law does not ignore human rights in denying detainees due process.But the series clearly hit a nerve among readers who felt it sympathized with terrorists. You can find a wider range of Guantanamo coverage here at blogrunner.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Current Affairs, Headlines, News content, Reader issues | Comments Off

Here’s what you said about D-Day coverage

June 25, 20087:36 p.m.

I wrote recently about some notes I had from readers unhappy that we didn’t publish a story commemorating the 64th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. The responses to that post make a few things – and only a few things – clear.

The flurry of calls and emails has died down, so I’ll share a few reactions: a) The range of opinion – from ambivalent to impassioned – offered nothing in the way of consensus of opinion. b) Some people have serious trouble arguing their viewpoint without resorting to personal attacks. c) Leave my mother out of this, if you don’t mind. d) And I haven’t drawn any sweeping conclusions from the responses I received.

Some people told me there’s no reason a newspaper – “which has ‘news’ in its name, last I checked” – should write a story every year recapping history. They saw that as a matter of personal responsibility, or the territory of a history journal. Others were irate that I would even question whether there should be a story, and believed people who lost sight of history were disconnected from patriotism and the freedoms they enjoy every day.

As a side note, I have to wonder what happened to the concept of civility in discussing ideas. It doesn’t bode well for the coming election season, or for any civic conversation, for that matter.

It’s disheartening that so many people can’t advocate their ideas without hostility and anger. One reader (amid other name-calling) noted that people obviously don’t care what I think because there are few comments posted on the blog. Throughout that day, several readers emailed comments to me directly, saying they’d rather not post on the blog because people are so hostile and “downright mean” that they didn’t care to post publicly. I know some people believe the anonymity of the Internet is to blame, but I see comments just as bad from people who sign their names. The community loses when the bullies control the discussion.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Current Affairs, Headlines, News content, People, Reader issues | Comments Off

How much should every reporter write?

June 13, 20087:43 p.m.

I’ve been surprised during the life of this blog how many readers keep up somewhat with the “inside baseball” of the news industry. I had a question in one husband-wife-signed email about a big flap in Chicago caused by new-ish Tribune Company owner Sam Zell. Zell and his COO, Randy Michaels, recently announced plans to dramatically reduce space in Tribune-owned newspapers.

Michaels went further by suggesting he had measured the productivity of reporters at the various papers the company owns and found significant gaps. He thought this would allow the company to eliminate jobs at some papers but not reduce the number of stories – presumably by requiring remaining reporters to increase story output.

The question sent to me was whether we have similar formulas at The Eagle. We don’t. In fact, people within Michaels’ company seem confused by the formula he cited. There’s no doubt that reporters at very small newspapers write many, many more stories than reporters at very large papers. If you’ve read a small daily newspaper and The New York Times, I would assume you would see that the gap in productivity also allows a gap in quality of the resulting stories.

Within individual newsrooms, from time to time we see gaps in how many stories individual reporters are writing. On occasion that turns into grumbling among co-workers and frustration from editors. It’s the same in just about any business. If you’re reading this and you work in a company where no one believes they work harder than others, congratulations. Don’t ever leave that job!

We take into account how complicated the stories are that a reporter is working on, and have general expectations that reporters work here because we expect them to find stories and write them. But we haven’t developed formulas or quotas, which I think would tend to value only quantity and disregard quality.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under News content, Reader issues | Comments (1)

LA Times changes reflect shift in the industry

June 13, 20087:20 p.m.

One reader asked what I thought about the announcement earlier this week that the Los Angeles Times was turning over its magazine to the newspaper’s business side, and would no longer produce it in the newsroom.

Last year we published a story noting that California was one of the top 10 states from which people were moving to Wichita. I’m assuming this question came from a displaced Californian who hasn’t been weaned from the news from home. I haven’t read many details about the magazine change, but the reason cited is familiar to every newsroom of every size in the country – in an era of tightening resources in newsrooms, what is the best and most effective way to deploy your staff and carry out your core mission, however you define it?

In our newsroom, that’s covering local news and providing better watchdog reporting of institutions and authority. Granted, the L.A. Times has a mammoth staff compared to ours, but nevertheless, the decisions have to seem just as difficult. What do you give up to do better at what’s most important? Newsrooms today have to be clear about how they define their core mission. Most can no longer do everything – so what is most important?

I see the magazine move as a case of doing just that. I can run through news industry Web sites and in 15 minutes cite dozens of examples of media redirecting resources – either people or technology or ink/paper (the biggest expense for print media next to people). And I include magazines in that, not just newspapers and broadcast media.

We are truly living in a media revolution. People use media in ways that have changed dramatically and continue to do so at a stunning pace. The options for the media navigating the seas of change are to figure out how to adapt or get left behind. Incidentally, Howard Weaver, VP for News at our parent company, pontificated on this recently on his blog.