News reports in recent months indicate that across the nation, numbers of golfers are declining as people give up the game because they lack time to play. Here’s hoping that the people who are quitting are the ones who keep spitting sunflower seed shells on the greens.
A reader took us to task for recent story headlined, “Governor Warns of Revenue Shortfall.” In the fourth paragraph, reporter David Klepper attributes a quotation from Kathleen Sebelius this way: “said Sebelius, a Democrat.” The reader, another David, wonders why we had to refer to her party, and what implication we were trying to make - that if the governor were a Republican, there would be no revenue shortfall?
Sometimes, a Democrat is just a Democrat. The reference to the governor’s party wasn’t meant as an implication of anything other than identifying her political party. One thing to keep in mind as Sebelius’ name floats as a potential vice president candidate - stories about her are being read online across the country as people seek to learn more about her. Such seemingly minor details help readers less familiar with Kansas politics. So the party affiliation - while extraneous to some - can aid clarity for thousands of other readers.
Check out this terrific column by Adrian Pratt, publisher of the Centre Daily Times in State College, Pa. The CDT is a sister paper of ours, also owned by McClatchy. Adrian’s column about being sworn in as a U.S. citizen last week is beautifully written.
Sherry: I was in NY yesterday, and traveling back to Wichita. Throughout the day, there was massive TV news coverage (at least on CNN) about the release of the Colombian hostages. John McCain was involved to some degree. Certainly the story generated national attention, and parallels to the Iranian hostages were drawn. There are current hostage situations in other parts of the world, as well. I couldn’t get all the details, as I was traveling, but assumed the Eagle would have an in-depth article on the front page. I was very surprised that the article was relegated to the back page (8A) of today’s paper, with no mention of McCain’s involvement (or whether he was just grandstanding). The front page was almost all local news, including a soft article on the parks.
I am disappointed that the Eagle relegated the hostage release article to the back page, and am curious as to why. Does the Eagle think Kansans don’t care what happens on the national/international front?
**********
“Douglas, thanks for your note. I would be glad to talk about our philosophy of local vs. national/international news, and the factors that drove this story decision.
I have a very different perspective from what you describe in your email. Today, we ran full-length versions of six national or international news stories. We ran “briefs” of six others. We chose those six stories – from a menu of hundreds of national/international stories moved by our wire services yesterday – because we believed they were the most relevant and/or interesting news of the day from outside our region. We devoted more space to the Colombian hostage story than any other non-local article in today’s A-section. In my view, any story that rises to the top 1% or 2% of news stories available for the day isn’t being dismissed in its news value.
In addition, because readers often like to flip the newspaper over before turning inside, the back page of the A-section (whether it’s page 8, 12, 24 or whatever) is generally one of the most popularly read pages of the paper, after the front page. That’s where the hostage story was published.
We define our primary mission as highlighting local news that our readers can’t get anywhere else. While you may dismiss the parks story as “soft,” I would urge you to drive out to one of the local lakes this weekend. There you will find thousands of people who create small cities with the mass of population camping at the waterways during the summer holidays. That will explain to you why, as of lunch hour, the parks story is the sixth most-read story on our Web site.
When I plug the Colombian hostages into Google, the top sites – of dozens that have this story today – are msnbc.com, yahoo.com, nytimes.com, npr.com, cnn.com, time.com, foxnews.com. The story is available everywhere. The story describing camping conditions at the major state parks is not.
While I’m sorry you’re disappointed in the positioning of the hostage story, I’m confident that the best service the Eagle can provide for the local community we serve is to focus our finite resources – reporting power and news space – on stories our readers can’t find anywhere else.”
Interesting piece by Lucy Dalglish in the spring edition of “The News Media & the Law,” published quarterly by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Dalglish lays out the case for a “function test” courts have long used to define a journalist, and suggests the test could be adapted to delineate journalist bloggers from non-journalists.
Some people outside the news business are surprised when “traditional journalists” readily accept that some bloggers qualify as journalists. That seems obvious to me. Regardless of how someone distributes information, if they’re collecting and accurately reporting facts to the public, they’re serving a news-gathering function. Today, thanks to the Web, they no longer need a printing press to do so.
The definition of a journalist is increasingly important in an era when some members of the criminal justice system are intent on using subpoenas to coerce journalists into doing their jobs for them. Many bloggers lack the resources to fight subpoenas for notes and sources. Actually, many traditional media outlets lack those resources anymore. Extending First Amendment protections is an important battlefront on the horizon to stop the continuing spread of a dangerous practice that threatens to undermine the independence of news media - whether that’s a fully staffed newspaper or a single blogger working from her home.
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.
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.
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.
A reader told me a few days ago that she got a fourth-hand email that referenced the 2008 Pulitzer Prizes for journalism. Someone from outside the state had flagged to her attention that it looked like an Eagle editor had been on a selection jury, and she didn’t think that could be true. It is. In 2007 and 2008 I had the honor of being invited to serve on a nominating jury for the prizes.
The administrator for the prizes works to put together nominating juries that are diverse in geography, newspaper size, company ownership, etc. Jurors spend three days in March working at Columbia University in New York. I learned upon reporting for duty on the first morning which category’s jury I would serve on (this year it was local news reporting; last year was commentary). The number of entries varies by category — for the categories I read each year, there were a large number of entries, so we worked some long hours to get finished on time.
Juries narrow the field to three finalists and submit those to the Pulitzer Board, which chooses the winner in April. It was a great honor to be invited, and a humbling and inspiring experience to spend long days reading the best journalism in the country.
You can find a list of all jurors at the Pulitzer site by clicking on the 2008 winners link, then scrolling to the bottom for the link on nominating jurors.
A reader said he heard that our owner, the McClatchy Company, reported a negative cash flow through the first quarter of the year. Actually that’s not quite right. McClatchy posted a loss from continuing operations of $0.01 per share. Here is the transcript of CEO Gary Pruitt’s Q1 earnings call.