Category Archives: Kansas.com

New health section coming Tuesday

We’re excited about the launch of a new section in your Eagle next Tuesday that will be devoted to living well — both physically and mentally. The new Healthy Living section will focus on getting (and staying) fit, eating healthy, managing stress, sleeping well, coping with illness, and everything else you want to know to live happy and healthy. Readers have frequently told us that health news is among the most important topics on their mind, and we’re happy to be expanding your Eagle and bringing you more of those articles and features.

Healthy Living will expand on the Tuesday focus of the former WichiTalk page, aiming to offer you advice and useful information to aid your mind and body. You’ll also find a column by Drs. Michael Roizen and Mehmet Oz, a feature named “What’s New on the Health Beat, a health-events calendar and “Boomer Life,” which focuses on health issues that affect the Baby Boomer generation.

You’ll also find the comics and puzzles moved to the new Healthy Living section.

Online at Kansas.com/healthyliving, you’ll find still more articles and features on important current health issues.

We want your feedback and your ideas for what you’d like to see in the section in coming weeks. Drop a note to Features Editor Lori Linenberger at llinenberger@wichitaeagle.com and let us know what you think.

Here’s to your health.

We want your feedback

We’ve put together a survey that seeks your feedback on The Eagle and Kansas.com. We hope you’ll take some time (about 15-20 minutes) to take the survey, at www.kansas.com/survey. Your feedback is important to us and our ongoing efforts to improve our print edition and Web site. We appreciate your time.

Welcome to our new Web site

On Friday afternoon, we launched our redesigned home page at Kansas.com. We think you’ll find it easier to find the stories you’re looking for, and the site more organized. Congratulations and many thanks to our site programmer, Katie Lohrenz, for a great deal of hard work to make our news site easier to use.

Here’s a note posted Friday by Nick Jungman, our deputy editor for interactive:

You might have noticed that we’ve changed a few things on the Kansas.com home page.

We’ve been working for weeks to develop a new home page for the site that is cleaner and more organized. The often chaotic jumble of information we used to have on the home page has given way to a categorized, calmer design. We think it’s a vast improvement.

But we know changes like this can be disorienting for our readers. We’ll certainly be making changes in the coming days based on your feedback, as well as extending some of these changes to other pages of the site. If you’re having trouble finding anything, or have any suggestions you’d like us to consider, please pass them along. You can e-mail us at webmaster@wichitaeagle.com or sound off in the comments below.

Tip on Tiller shooting came from an Eagle editor

One of the most common questions news staff members are asked about a major news story is, “How did you hear about it?”

On most crime stories, the answer is the police scanner, or a police report.

We learned through unusual means last Sunday that George Tiller had been shot, and I think it’s right to disclose to our readers how that happened.

For more than 10 years, Assistant Metro Editor Marcia Werts and her family have attended Reformation Lutheran Church. She was arriving at church Sunday shortly after the shooting occurred, and her husband and daughter were inside the church. She phoned Deputy Editor Tom Shine to alert him to the developing story. Marcia was understandably shaken by what happened at the church that day, and we did not ask her to take part in news coverage, though she did stay in touch with other Eagle editors through the day. Other media organizations also were arriving at the church about the time Marcia arrived, presumably after hearing of a shooting on the police scanner.

It’s rare that one of our staff members is so closely connected to a developing news story. Many people have asked how The Eagle confirmed the news of George Tiller’s death so quickly that morning, and I want to be open with our readers on the circumstances of how this happened.

Flurry of questions after Medallion Hunt

I’ve fallen behind in responding to a collection of questions/comments about The Eagle Medallion Hunt, which ended May 15 at the Riverfest Block Party with James Cline winning the grand prize Suzuki car.

We got a great amount of positive feedback. With some exceptions, the biggest complaints seemed to come from people who didn’t guess the right answer or, who didn’t participate but wanted to complain about the contest anyway.  Some questions came up repeatedly:

Why can’t you just go back to the old way, with a physical medallion hidden?

At this point, we have no plans to do this. The contest was discontinued in this form in 2000 because, despite repeated pleadings and admonitions, some hunt participants continued to damage public and private property. This happened repeatedly, and we’re not willing to create that possibility again.

Some people misunderstood the concept of this year’s “virtual” hunt and thought all clues could be solved via computer. That wasn’t the case. We tried to create a few clues that required people to know or learn about Wichita and its history. That’s why I loved getting emails or comments from people who participated with their whole families, and some folks — even some who guessed incorrectly — said they learned things they didn’t know about the city and had fun doing it.

I understand that no form of a contest will make everyone happy. Somebody will grumble no matter what the format or the rules. So we try to solve the biggest problems by the way we structure the contest.

What did you think of the outcome? Did the contest go the way the Eagle wanted?

We were very pleased. With a new format, we didn’t know what to expect — how many entries, how many correct answers, etc. We know there’s no way to run a contest like this and not generate complaints about the rules and the outcome. But I was very happy to get so many positive comments from people who enjoyed playing. There were no major glitches, and we got plenty of feedback to consider if we continue the contest next year. I appreciated the time people took to email, call or talk to me in person about how they thought the hunt worked.

Will you continue the hunt next year?

It’s too early to make that decision, but we were happy with the way the hunt went, and that would be a major factor.

Who wrote the clues?

Some people asked because they wanted to offer compliments, others were looking for the right people to throw things at. I don’t want to be more specific than this: Eagle staff members determined the “virtual” hiding place and wrote and edited the clues.

Why didn’t the contest end on the first correct answer?

The previous format of the contest — with an actual medallion physically hidden — had to end when the medallion was located. That might (and did, sometimes) happen two or three days into the contest. This year, the grand prize was four times the value of previous prizes, and we wanted to give more people an opportunity to participate — to let all of the clues run their course.

We added incentives for the first people who guessed correctly. The first person who submitted the right answer, for example, won a 32-inch LCD TV, plus got 10 extra entries in the drawing for the car. That meant that she had 11 of 175 entries in the drawing. Those are pretty good odds for a grand prize of that size. I understand the argument of folks who thought the contest should end after one correct guess. But we think the benefit of letting more people participate through the duration of the contest is very fair, especially since there’s also a premium for being first.

I’m suspicious about groups of winning entries from people with the same last name. That doesn’t seem fair.

We did see several cases in which more than one person from a family entered. In most cases, I think that’s fair. For example, when a family participated together in solving the clues, it seems reasonable that they should each be able to enter a guess. I realize some people disagree and think a team should only be allowed one guess.

In a couple of cases, though, family members with out-of-state addresses entered guesses identical to local participants with the same last name. It’s possible those entries were not from people who participated in the hunt. But at least one person commented that his or her family member moved out of town, and still participated long-distance. Admittedly, it would be very difficult to determine whether multiple last names are all legitimate participants. We initially considered limiting the contest to Kansas residents this year but chose not to. That’s something worth looking at again in the future. But the idea has been to open the contest to more people, not to exclude.

Why did we only get to submit one guess?

We wanted to make the contest more challenging by adding an element of risk/reward. If people could guess over and over, there’s really no strategy involved. Think about Jeopardy — if you buzz in and don’t have the right answer, you lost your shot. You don’t get to keep buzzing in with more guesses. We wanted people to weigh the benefit of being first vs. the risk of being incorrect.

Why wouldn’t you tell me if my answer was right when I submitted it?

Because we didn’t want to see the confirmed correct answer on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc., while the contest was continuing.

How many people submitted correct answers?

157. There were 777 entries submitted.

Did the Riverfest staff approve the clues and hiding spot?

No, only Eagle staff members (four of us) knew the location. Riverfest people helped us with contest logistics and arrangements for the car drawing at the Block Party. They were a great help, but did not administer the contest. On a side note: I don’t know the festival staff members we worked with always seemed so relaxed (and organized). The amount of detail they handle in coordinating the festival was frightening.

Thanks to everyone for comments and feedback. It’s been terrific to hear such positive responses from people who enjoyed playing and were glad to see the Medallion Hunt return.

Grammar Monkeys debut Monday

Do you find yourself shying away from party conversations because you don’t know the difference between who and whom?

Are you confused on whether a subordinate clause is a part of speech or one of Santa’s elves?

Don’t worry. We’re here to help.

The copy desk at The Wichita Eagle is known for its sense of humor and spirited discussions on usage, grammar and style.

Starting Monday, we’re sharing that knowledge and sense of fun through The Eagle’s first podcast on Kansas.com: the Grammar Monkeys.

Each week we’ll tackle a new topic. First up is one of the most common usage errors, lay vs. lie.

Impress your friends with your knowledge and my bosses with our number of downloads by going to http://blogs.kansas.com/grammar every Monday.

If you have grammar questions you want us to address, write us at grammarmonkeys@wichitaeagle.com.

Planning election coverage

I had a phone call this week from a reader named Shirley, saying she loved the “true or false” piece we published Sunday on campaign claims. She hopes we plan to do more of this. We do. One key focus we’ll have this election season is trying to be as useful as possible in helping voters gather information they need to make decisions in the vast number of offices up for election.

One place we hope you stay in tune with is our election news page on Kansas.com. I’ll ask Jean Hays, deputy editor/news, to talk to you in this blog about plans for coverage through November. And if you have ideas for articles or features you want, let Jean know (jhays@wichitaeagle.com) or our assistant metro editor who is handling state and local election news, Marcia Werts (mwerts@wichitaeagle.com). We’ll do our best to find the information you want.

Eagle ethics policies govern meals, gifts

I have a couple of great ethics questions from a reader puzzled by two posts on our Business Casual blog recently. Barry read posts by Carrie Rengers, our business columnist, referring to a lunch she had with a local businessman. In a previous post, Carrie said she flipped a coin with the businessman to determine who would buy lunch (she lost). She was soon leaving for a vacation in Las Vegas, and the man also gave her $100 and asked her to bet it for him.

Barry asks what our ethics policies are regarding sources buying lunch for Eagle reporters, columnists or editors. What if she had lost the coin flip? And, he asks, “Secondly, is it acceptable practice to receive ‘a crisp $100 bill’ from that source?”

We do have a specific ethics policy regarding a wide range of issues, including meals and gifts, and we are in the process of updating that policy. As soon as the revisions are complete, I’ll post the entire policy on Kansas.com for readers to see.

Our current policy on buying meals says it’s preferable to pick up the tab or split it. If paying or splitting isn’t feasible, or the source insists on picking up the tab, then make plans to reciprocate and take the other person to lunch in the near future. This is fairly common practice in our newsroom with sources we meet frequently for lunch or dinner.

Our policy on accepting gifts is also clear: We don’t. In this case, the businessman did not give the money to Carrie as a gift. He gave it to her asking her to wager it on his behalf in Las Vegas. Our ethics policies are clearly not meant to cover every imaginable situation, and do not address what to do if someone asks you to bet money for them.

But here’s the “however” – I still wish we had not accepted the $100 and agreed to wager it. It doesn’t violate the letter of the ethics policy, but, simply put, it looks bad. It opens us to the perception, as Barry interpreted it, that we took money from a source. It could potentially compromise our impartiality in the future. The best course of action in this case would have been to explain that we can’t accept the money or bet it for him.

But here’s another “however” – those types of decisions are difficult to think through on the spur of a moment when a source is asking you (with no ill intent) to bet the money for him. I know Carrie to be an ethical journalist who takes great pains to discuss potential conflicts with me or other editors. Many readers don’t know that about her, and know only that she wrote about taking $100 from a source. Given the benefit of time to discuss that decision, I believe she would have handled it differently.

Hindsight, as always, is much sharper than foresight.

Readers give voters guide a thumbs up

I came back Monday from two business trips to find a string of thank-you emails from readers who love the new interactive voters guide at Kansas.com. I’m delighted that so many Eagle readers and Kansas.com users like the new online voters guide, which is a significant improvement over what we have been able to offer in the past.

Marcia Werts, an assistant metro editor, and Nick Jungman, deputy editor/interactive, did most of the work to bring you searchable profiles on 713 candidate running in 410 races in Sedgwick, Butler, Harvey and Sumner counties. Along with biographical information, profiles include candidate responses on key election issues. We were able to create this site with a lot of hard work by Marcia, Nick and other newsroom staffers, plus a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to our Web partner, E-ThePeople.org, to build the site with us.

Feedback on the site has been terrific, and to answer a couple of readers’ questions: yes, we plan to do it again for the November elections. Several readers appreciated that the “build your ballot” feature found candidates for them when they weren’t sure which district they lived in for a particular office. Another woman wrote, “Because of this site I was able to persuade my husband to peruse his parties races and to do an advance vote in the primary since we will be in Colorado on the day of the election.”

The way we see it, that’s the ultimate success for us with this election toolkit: Giving citizens the information they need to help them take part in the democratic process. To all who dropped me a note, thanks for the feedback.

Using Twitter as a news pipeline

Interesting discussion by Chris O’Brien on a PBS site, MediaShift Idea Lab, about using Twitter to report news. Eagle Courts reporter Ron Sylvester experimented with news reporting on Twitter during a recent trial, and we were excited about the results – and especially surprised by the number of people who found him to follow his reports, even though we hadn’t publicized the Twitter coverage. (The American Bar Association took note of Ron’s Twitter coverage, too.)

In addition, we send tweets through the day with Wichita Eagle headlines.

O’Brien’s right that there are some drawbacks to Twitter as a breaking news source – but also some significant reasons for newsrooms to plug in to a new way of sending information out and getting information in from people who are seeing news happen.