Thanks to all who dropped us a note to let us know you’re delighted to have both crossword puzzles now in the TV book. Quite a few of you wrote to say thanks for returning the old puzzle — and I think this is the first time I’ve ever been told I brought balance to someone’s life.
And others thanked me for not ditching the new puzzle from the New York Times. I appreciate the feedback, and I’m glad everyone is satisfied with the outcome.
Over the past month or so, I’ve gotten a few emails from readers who said they sent me a “friend request” on Facebook and wondered why I hadn’t accepted it. Two of them pointed out that they are already Facebook friends with a few other Eagle newsroom staffers, and they weren’t sure why there were differences among Eagle news staff in the connections they make on social media networks.
So let me talk a little bit about our social media guidelines as a newsroom, and mine individually.
Earlier this week, the newsroom staff had a great lunchtime discussion about how our personal and professional lives intersect on social media networks. We updated the newsroom’s ethics policy over the summer and added a social media section for the first time, and one thing is already clear — it needs to be more specific to give our staff more guidance in how to use networks like Facebook, Twitter or MySpace without compromising our credibility as a journalists (and, by extension, The Eagle’s).
Earlier this month, Mashable.com quoted a study in which more than half of employers surveyed block social media sites on work computers. At The Eagle, I believe that connecting to these networks, especially within our community, is an increasingly important part of our job. I encourage our staff to be engaged in digital community conversations as part of their job. And to do it with the same sound ethical guidelines we’ve adhered to in the print business for many decades.
The use of social media is evolving so rapidly, though, that stories are abundant of people who have harmed their careers and their employers’ reputations by exercising poor judgment in Tweets, blog posts or Facebook updates. Being a news organization just adds an extra few layers of complication, and we don’t yet have all the answers on how to handle every situation that can arise. Our guidelines and practices will change as we make mistakes, or discover ethical dilemmas we hadn’t anticipated.
In our discussion last week, I told our staff that I won’t issue rules on who they should or should not invite or accept as Facebook friends. Common sense should guide decisions for journalists who use Facebook as a mix of personal friends/family and professional connections. It’s common for journalists to have professional acquaintances connected to them on Facebook. I view it as a great compliment to our staff that readers and sources in the community want to have connections to our staff on social networks — they see our writers, editors, visual journalists, etc., as approachable, or they wouldn’t want to connect to them.
Some of us are, frankly, unsure how far to go in opening the doors of our Facebook pages. We’re figuring it out as we go, and, at least for me, practices change over time as use of the social network grows. It’s not that there are hoards of people banging at my Facebook door by any means. And I don’t have earth-shattering posts on my Facebook page (and I don’t update it often enough — I’m working on it). But I do have family members there, and my vacation photos, and conversations with close friends.
So a month or two ago I decided that I was not going to connect with people on Facebook if I don’t know them. It’s not meant as a slight to anyone. I just consider it something of an extension of my personal space, and I want to make sure that I know who the people are who are stopping by. At the same time, I’m not willing to suggest to Eagle staff members with their practice should be. That needs to be a personal decision. I do, though, ask that they be aware of the implications of people they might accept or invite as friends, and the potential for those connections to reflect on them in their role as a journalist.
Twitter is a much more open space, in my view, and I follow people there whom I have never met in person.
We’ll be working on a more specific social media policy in the coming weeks. If you wonder what other companies — both inside and outside the media business — have established for policies, Mashable points to a great directory of policies at Social Media Governance.
Sharon in Asheville, NC, writes that she’s closing her furniture/consignment store and found an old photograph marked, “Uncle Floyd Fultz and Family.” She thought the family might want to have it. It’s stamped F.A. Wesely Studio in Wichita. Obituary archives indicate Floyd Fultz passed away in 1956. If you’re a surviving family member and would like to have the photo, drop me an email at schisenhall@wichitaeagle.com and I’ll put you in touch with Sharon.
Fultz family photo
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.
I got a voice mail message from a reader who identified herself only as “McLeod” and asked for an editor to call her back. Problem is, the phone connection wasn’t very good, and I couldn’t correctly decipher the phone number to call back. If you are Ms. McLeod with a Cokie Roberts question — please drop me a note with your phone number at schisenhall@wichitaeagle.com. Sorry for the technology mishap.
It was nice to start the week with this note from a reader about Beccy Tanner’s story on USS Grunion. Thanks, Tim, we love hearing from happy readers:
“The Eagle has some great writers/story tellers on staff. I just want to say how much I enjoy reading articles like the Grunion story…what a string of coincidences, and I have been moved to tears by Roy Wenzl more than once. Your paper must count itself blessed to have the depth of talent that is consistently displayed in its pages.”
We’re indeed fortunate in our newsroom to have a staff of talented writers, many who are long-time (if not lifelong) Kansans. As I told Tim, I think that connection to the community and region shows in the stories they write.
One potentially delicate issue to deal with around election time is the barrage of spam that friends and family members send on various campaign issues. I get a ton of them at work, but I figure that’s part of the job. It’s more of an annoyance, though, when I have to wade through them in my personal email at home.
So far, I’ve dealt with this by just deleting them. I’ve known of some family members or friends who have written back to spammers and (not always politely) told them to quit spamming. I find the sociology of political spam kind of fascinating – sending sometimes extreme views via email to friends or family whose views you are not familiar with. Do spammers wonder if they’re offending the recipient? Do they care? Or do they hope the email changes the recipient’s view?
I’ve never been able to figure out the purpose of political spam. Or any spam, for that matter. I rarely, if ever, forward any of the thousands of emails – jokes, photos, scams, urban legends, news-that’s-not-really-true, cartoons, etc. – that clog the world’s servers. I never feel the urge to “send it on” to 20 friends or relatives. It seems like a better idea, if you’re going to take the time to attach so many names to an email, to just send a note instead and ask, “How are you?” To opt instead for some substantive social interaction.
I’ve always believed political views are very personal, and I can’t imagine sending email like buckshot to dozens of friends or family members whose beliefs I don’t know. Judging by the inbox, though, not everyone shares that feeling. Do most of you mind getting those emails? If it bothers you, how do you handle it?
I love election season. For all of its flaws, it’s still democracy in action. And a presidential election carries with it the added excitement of history in the making.
It’s also the season for a daily stream of emails I get accusing the newspaper of bias for or against the writer’s favored candidate. Many are emotional and accusatory, built on the absolute certain knowledge that the news staff is laboring to execute an intricate conspiracy.
I take each one seriously. Sometimes, I quickly see how a writer came to his or her conclusion. A word we used may be a little loaded in meaning, or we left out a pertinent fact. Most of the time, these are errors of oversight or failure to anticipate how an article or headline would be perceived by readers. Sometimes, the writer or editor truly has bought too hard into one candidate’s argument, and we have to talk about how to provide better balance. And sometimes, the plain fact is that with so many offices up for election, some races are in danger of slipping through the cracks and not getting enough coverage unless we’re vigilant.
The hardest complaints to resolve, though, are the ones that are based on an unspecific perception the reader has about the intent of the writer. One article last week drew seething responses – and threats to cancel the paper – from two readers. One believed the article was grossly biased toward a liberal viewpoint. The other was equally passionate that The Eagle is “a conservative rage” and this story was another example of our right-wing bias.
The concept of bias is complex – both in its reality (no one can truly have zero beliefs and biases) and in the reader’s passionate perception that bias exists. Often, we see what we want to see or expect to see. It can be hard, when we’re pushed for specifics, to put our finger on the source of the slant we think we see.
One of my naive hopes each election season is for civility in our debate. I love debating ideas and viewpoints with friends and listening to them explain their beliefs. And I continue to be saddened and frustrated by the growing refusal of so many people to debate ideas without attacking people. I’ve had very enlightening discussions with people I respect greatly – I sometimes disagree completely with their view on a subject, but I don’t feel a compulsion to attack them personally, nor do I lose respect because our ideas might conflict.
We have a complicated assignment until November. We have to take seriously our responsibility for squelching biases, or the perception of them. At the same time, many readers today have a hair-trigger for proclaiming bias, and we’re not helped when whole political organizations establish a strategy of urging people to claim bias as a way to get letters to the editor published. (The MoveOn organization sent an email blast linking to instructions on how to do this for an orchestrated attack on Sarah Palin. A reader sent me the email, complete with a Web form for sending letters to the editor and a suggestion that the best way to get letters published is to pick an article and allege your viewpoint was excluded.)
For good and for bad, happy election season to all.
On Sunday’s front page you will find a package of stories that will be controversial for some and interesting for others.
We’re writing about how much individuals in government are paid. Also beginning Sunday you will find searchable databases on Kansas.com containing the salaries of city, county, school district and state government employees.
Some employees may question whether this respects their privacy.
Salaries are personal. We understand that.
But public salaries also are public information and are paid for by public tax dollars. Taxpayers have a right to see where their money is going.
A few state governments, such as Georgia, Iowa and Missouri, have put salaries for state government employees online for all to see.
The state of Kansas plans to do the same through www.kansas.gov/kanview a new site designed to promote transparency in government and budgets.
There are several reasons for making the information available:
1. Government is one of the largest employers. Wages it offers can help influence the pay scale for the rest of the area.
2. Salaries are a large part of a government’s budget, just as they are for any private company. For example, the city of Wichita spends more than 70 percent of its general fund, which is fed by property taxes, on salaries.
Ed Flentje, a Wichita State University professor who served as interim manager, warned in his proposed city budget that the amount the city pays in wages is increasing faster than the amount of money flowing into the general fund. If that trend doesn’t change, the city will either have to cut spending or increase taxes within three years.
Recent elections indicated that taxpayers are expecting local governments to be more accountable for how they spend money. It’s hard to tell just where tax money is going, if salary information is kept secret.
3. Finally, it’s interesting. KU athletic director Lew Perkins is paid $646,281, with about 28 percent of that coming from the state’s general fund. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is paid $106,948. Here’s a question for the next dinner table debate — what makes an athletic director worth six times more than a state’s governor?
I’ve written here many times about the challenging environment these days in the media industry – an era when changing reader habits are creating upheaval in media use, and every media company is working to adapt.
Because we’re a newspaper, we tend to be myopically focused on newspapers when we talk about this in the newsroom. But it’s interesting to look at the impact of changing media habits elsewhere, too. Women’s Wear Daily has an interesting piece today looking at first-half newsstand sales for major magazines. It’s an interesting chart and analysis.