Category Archives: Reader issues

Discussing Colombian hostage story with a reader

Yesterday3:48 p.m.

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.

Newspapers across the country, regardless of size, varied widely in where they played the hostage story. Some, such as the L.A. Times and Kansas City Star, ran the story on the front page. Others, such as the Boston Globe, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Baltimore Sun, did not. Fewer mid-size newspapers, such as the Eagle, put the story on the front page. (You can  find front pages each day on the Newseum’s site.)

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.”

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Current Affairs, Headlines, News content, Reader issues | Comments (0)

Who qualifies as a “journalist”?

Wednesday3:51 p.m.

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.

By Sherry Chisenhall | Filed under Current Affairs, Headlines, News content, Reader issues | Comments (3)

PDFs of printed section fronts

Monday1:59 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 (0)

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 (1)

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 (0)

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 (0)

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 (0)

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 (0)

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 (0)

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 (0)