News-Record.com

Newspaper editors constantly fiddle with newspaper design. We're always seeking the Holy Grail: that combination of photography, layout, headlines and stories that will invite readers in and then guide them through a newspaper like a Sherpa in the Himalayas.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has given it a shot. As with anything new, the paper has gotten kudos and complaints.

We've made our share of design changes over the years, always in an attempt to make the newspaper more accessible and engaging. If you've been around the Triad for a while, you know we've gone from moderate to splashy to moderate again, all with varying degrees of success. We're playing around with some design changes now, too, more along the lines of evolutionary improvement. We're looking to introduce them later in the fall.

Betsi Robinson, who has been an editorial writer for the News & Record for nearly six years, is going to be our community editor, beginning next week.

This is wonderful news for the newspaper and for the community. Betsi is a crack journalist, generates great ideas, radiates positive energy and loves the Triad. She'll be in charge of People & Places and also will direct our coverage of interesting people around town. One of our priorities over the past year has been to focus on people as much as we do on government. We've made some headway -- I hope you've noticed -- and we expect Betsi to take us to the next level.

Before moving to editorial, Betsi was a news editor in Greensboro and High Point. She is involved in the community, her neighborhood and her children's schools. Please welcome her when you see her and send her lots of story ideas. You can do that here.

Meanwhile, Laura Goodman, a freelance writer and editor, has filled in admirably over the past several weeks as we waited for Betsi to finish her editorial duties. With Laura in charge, we've not missed a beat. She's been a life saver.

John Newsom, our higher education reporter, will try his hand at writing editorials until Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson finds a permanent replacement. Opinion writing will be a good change of pace for John, who has covered higher and lower education for us for several years. Beginning next week, feel free to call him to comment on editorial opinion!

Columnist Rosemary Roberts, who teaches a college journalism class, asked me about this photograph on the front page of today's New York Times. Had this bombing occurred in Greensboro, she asked, would you publish this photo? She was anticipating just such a discussion in her class.

It's an emotionally wrenching, powerful photograph, although it's not overly bloody. My guess, and this is what I told Rosemary, is that we probably would publish it, but not necessarily on the front page.

Readers trust us to deliver the news of the day to their breakfast tables. Many of them don't want to be grossed out by a graphic photo, no matter where it is taken or how compelling it is. They consider it a violation of that trust. There are other photos, they would say, that would appropriately capture the death and devastation of the scene. "I should decide if I want these graphic images in my house, no you," they would say. I know because we have published photographs of dead bodies on the front page before, and I've heard from readers.

The other side of the publishing equation is this: We have to present the truth. If the bomb went off here, we'd have hundreds of photographs to choose from. Our first obligation to our readers is to publish those that tell the story in its truest, most accurate form. If the photos feature dead bodies, then that may be an image that is important for readers to see, know and understand.

All of this is pure speculation, of course, because a bombing in downtown Greensboro or High Point is out of my experience, thank God. Here's an article on the Times' decision and reader reaction.

Both Ed Cone and Jeff Thigpen weigh in on Mayor Holliday's remarks at the State of the Community luncheon Tuesday. Both make great points. The mayor's complaints about the news media didn't surprise me. He's told me his concerns on various occasions, we've published his thoughts on the issue, and I have written a column about his negativity toward the press.

It may be naive of me, but I believe the operations of government should be transparent. The news media -- in this case, more precisely, the print media -- have a distinct role to play in the oversight of public agencies. So, it's hardly unusual for a politician to dislike the press for attempting to tell readers the news, particularly if that news is "bad." In that vein, the mayor has cause to complain. He hasn't liked our coverage of hockey or of Project Homestead. A year ago, he complained in the State of the Community luncheon about the media's coverage of the new downtown baseball stadium.

The fact is, it is possible to welcome scrutiny and channel it into making the city a better, smarter, more interesting place. It's possible to take an honest look -- not optimistic OR pessimistic -- and use it to improve the world.

My advice to the mayor is to read "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. He describes The Stockdale Paradox, which is the ability to confront the brutal facts, make smart decisions and be optimistic, all at the same time.

We've introduced another blog today, "Inside Scoop," which is a continuation and expansion of our Saturday newspaper column. The authors are local government reporters Mark Binker, Sue Schultz and Matt Williams. Here's how they describe it: "We designed this site for those whose thirst for government and political news just can't be slaked by the daily paper."

Already posted are notes about two juicy topics -- billboards and the coliseum's finances.

Enjoy.

David Hoggard eloquently discusses the difference between a journalist and a citizen with a point of view. It couldn't have come at a better time for the News & Record's bloggers as we navigate writing with a variety of different voices.

As I've read blogs from the area, I've seen many references to and critiques of the News & Record. No surprise there. I'm well aware that we're the Goliath in battle with David. That role doesn't bother me. You should be able to judge the quality of a newspaper by reading it. When we screw up, we need to be held accountable.

I've been struck, though, by how misinformed many of the comments about us are. There's a difference between opinion stated as fact and fact. For instance, when I announced in the paper that we had started blogging, one writer said this: "There's no doubt the News & Record's blogs will need the corporate stamp of approval before they're posted." No elaboration or evidence given. I don't even know what "corporate stamp of approval" means. I do know that the corporate types have better things to do than edit all the posts.

We've been written about for years. I have no problem with being on the wrong side of opinions. Variety of thought is what makes the world interesting. (Well, one of the things.) In any case, we have thick skins.

One of the reasons I'm blogging is to explain our business. We should be transparent. I'm well aware that not all journalists or pundits follow the same rules we do, such as requiring sources to be named; requiring two sources for every story; using primary sources rather than secondary ones; and making sure you get comment from the "other side." Oddly, I have rarely been called by people writing about us for information or clarification. (Once, a few years ago, a writer for the Rhino called me to ask why we had done something, and, before I answered his question, I said, "I'm stunned that you would call to ask. You guys never do that." His response: "I'm new here." I answered his questions, but I haven't been called since.)

So here's my point: Have a question about why the paper did something? Feel free to e-mail me and I'll answer or will try to get the answer. From that, draw whatever opinion you like. I may well agree with you. And it may serve to inform your readers and ours.

Last week, I posted a memory by my pen pal Perry Keziah about the 1945 football game between High Point High School and Greensboro High School in which fights broke out. The Greensboro Daily News wrote nothing about the fights. Perry checked the High Point Enterprise archives, and they didn't write anything about off-the-field violence either.

So, naturally, I accused Perry of having a few too many slugs of moonshine back when he was in high school. And, like a good reporter, he found others to back up his claims.

Bob Hauser: "One thing I remember is that there were spectators walking in and among the band while we were performing on the field at the half. I believe Ralph Edwards, our drum major, got into an altercation of some type on the field. After the game we were in the bus and it was attacked. Louis Cayton opened the window to yell at the boys outside and one of them hit him square on the nose, causing it to bleed profusely. Louis had to be restrained to keep from getting off the bus and seeking revenge."

Paul Hardin: "I was pushed under the players' bench in the row after the game and decided that the smartest thing to do would be to stay there."

I will stand by my original theory that the fights occurred and just weren't reported. Sports reporting was different in those days.

I received this welcome e-mail today from the N.C. Press Association:

"A panel of North Carolina Court of Appeals judges has reinforced an earlier opinion that a governmental body does not have the right to sue a citizen when that citizen petitions a court to determine if the public body has violated the state's Open Meetings or Records law.

"The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a 2002 decision in which a Superior Court judge held that the City of Burlington could seek a declaratory judgment against The Alamance News after publisher Tom Boney sued the City over a violation of the N.C. Open Meetings Law.

"The Court of Appeals ruled that both the Open Meetings and Public Records Laws were enacted for the benefit of the public, and that to permit governmental agencies to sue private and corporate citizens in an attempt to vindicate their positions would have a chilling effect on the public's exercise of the rights accorded them by the statutes.

"In a similar case last summer, the Court of Appeals ruled against Raleigh City Attorney Thomas McCormick in his effort to seek a declaratory judgment against Hanson Aggregates Southeast, when the company asked the city for public records related to a piece of property.

"The North Carolina Press Association, two years ago, introduced a bill in the General Assembly that would do away with public officials' right to sue private citizens when the citizens seek access to public meetings and public records."

The complete opinion in the Alamance News case is here.

Obviously, for those of us who appreciate open government and public access to the public's business, this is good news.

It didn't take long to get the first complaint about our front page today. We expected some reaction, given that Senator Kerry came to town on the same day that the death toll for American troops in Iraq hit 1,001. Both of those stories dominate the front page today. It seemed to be tailor-made for a complaint that our news judgment was pro-Kerry.

So, the first complaint? "I am absolutely outraged at the utter and total bias of your coverage of John Kerry. You are obviously a Republican. How dare you put an article on the front page starting off that somebody, if he had been a dog barking for an hour, would have voted for him? And that headline about a partisan crowd. That is unforgiveable and unbelievable.

"If people got to hear him unbiased and unedited and unfiltered, they would vote for him."

The anonymous caller went on from there, but you get the picture.

Accusations of newspaper bias come from all sides.

We published a story this morning from The Boston Globe about the military service record of President Bush. Here's the story behind the story.

For those of us interested in how people read Web sites, there's some fascinating information in a new Eyetrack research study. "Smaller type encourages focused viewing" and "larger type promotes lighter scanning"? That's counter-intuitive for editors used to dealing with newspaper readers who want larger type. Readers look at text before images? That is, too. Good, usable stuff.

A reality series based on a newspaper newsroom? According to Editor & Publisher, a film company is peddling a television program based on the Philadelphia Inquirer newsroom. The news release says: "A reality series that goes behind the scenes of this major U.S. daily newspaper to follow 400 editors, reporters, and photographers as they cover breaking news and race against the clock to get their stories to press before midnight."

It's the mind that races, actually. Hey, I'm the first to say that we do fascinating, important work. But a reality show? Let me think: Reporters cooling their heels waiting for call-backs from sources. Others running in breathlessly from meetings to get stories about a rezoning onto the press before midnight. A few others surfing the web, visiting verboten sites. Lots of gossiping and complaining. Arguments about where to eat lunch. And editors? Maybe we'll finally figure out what editors do!

Reality shows do have a lot in common with newsrooms: Contestants are forced to eat gross, slimy, creepy stuff. (You should see the machine food we have.) Stab each other in the back. (For a good story? Yep.) Team up when they need to? (Sure.) Fall in love. (Uh-huh.)

"A Simple Life" is a hit, so this could work. As a comedy, though. Now, who do we have who can play Paris?

There's an interesting back story to the race relations project that will be announced officially on Monday by Greensboro Mayor Keith Holliday. It tells a little about how newspapers operate and perhaps why the mayor has difficulty with us.

We received this news release from the city on Wednesday, announcing the mayor's press conference. Here's the wording that caught the attention of our City Hall reporter, Matt Williams: the mayor "will announce the kickoff of a unique and significant community relations project for Greensboro."

Given the city's racial history, Matt correctly thought this worth pursuing. The mayor didn't return Matt's call, and it didn't take long to find out that the mayor had told city staff not to discuss the plan. Matt wrote what he knew for Thursday's paper.

On Thursday, one of the organizers called me, asking us not to write any more stories about the initiative until after the news conference. Additional stories could endanger the plan's funding, I was told. I responded that this is a legitimate story of community interest, that the story was already out and that we couldn't "unring the bell." (Yes, I'm afraid I used that very cliche.)

Meanwhile, Matt continued to pursue the story and got some more details, which we published today.

The initiative appears to serve an admirable civic purpose. But I suspect it has already created some ill will between the organizers and the newspaper, unnecessary ill will, if you ask me. (It's not apparent to me that any other news outlet has reported the initiative, but I could be wrong.)

First, too many movers and shakers know about the program to keep it a secret, so why try? Second, this is, presumably, a positive announcement, so why let it twist out in the public eye for five days without any verification? Why risk having an incomplete story out there? Third, imagine if they had planned some advance build-up and marketed the announcement, rather than tried to keep the lid on.

Oh, well. We'll still attend the announcement Monday and put it online and in the paper.

Are you as ready to let this die as I am? I will do my best to make sure this is the last post here on Mayor Holliday and the city's community relations initiative. Here's today's news release from the city. I'll let it speak for itself, except to say that when we get news releases like this one, which we received last week, we put them in the newspaper. It's really a common journalistic practice.

The debate continues and escalates. Is blogging the latest scourge to afflict newspapers? Some editors weigh in. I happen to be in the Doug Clifton school: blogs are helpful to newspapers and to the community at large.

Operating in a city with a healthy "alternative" press, we're used to partisan attacks on our coverage, ethics and standards. If you pay attention, you can use them to get better. Blogs do the same thing. As bloggers post information we think our readers would be interested in, we pursue it, perhaps not as quickly as we should, but that's another issue. They question our coverage; we try to address the questions or use them to improve ourselves.

Of course, the sooner newspapers realize that blogs aren't going away, the better. And I say that acknowledging that I came late to this party. This one is all of three weeks old, and I already can't imagine not doing it. (Although, I admit it is difficult to keep up.) So, to me, the question is not whether blogs are a scourge to newspapers, but how are newspapers going to use them to get better?

Today, we said so long to Larry Keech, who has been a sportwriter here since 1968 and a friend and mentor to hundreds of journalists who've passed through here. LK is retiring so that he can go to matinees of teen exploitation movies, tune into Oprah and soap operas on a new plasma TV and watch sports like a regular person. Good for him. He's earned it.

Anyone who's been a reporter that long has a book full of stories, both about the people he's covered and himself. I'll let Larry tell those in his leisure. Instead, I want to steal the comments of Bill Hass, another long-time sportwriter here, who wrote this about Larry:

"Someone may have to pry my grip from his ankles as he leaves today. It's not that our department will be down two bodies. It's not that he will leave me, in Irwin's phrase, as 'the oldest rat in the barn.'

"It's just that, after 36 years, I can't imagine coming to work every day and Larry not being there.

"I'll soldier on, as always.

"But it won't be the same without him."

Godspeed on your new journey, LK. But remember your friends here and come back to visit.

Jesse Walker at Reason informs me as I continue the search for the firm ground between newspapers and blogging. His example is CBS and those pesky documents, but it certainly applies to those of us who print on dead trees. An excerpt:

"Cyberspace offers many rewards, but it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters who don't understand the concept of evidence and would-be analysts who can't be bothered to comprehend the views they're critiquing, with would-be stylists who rely on cliches and would-be satirists without a trace of wit. Worse yet, it's filled with disinformation and fog, especially during a presidential campaign and a war. It's tempting to recoil from all the contradictory claims and to despair of ever learning the truth.

"But that disinformation and fog were there in the old days as well. They're just more obvious in this more transparent age, when the voice of Dan Rather is no longer enough to soothe a viewer's doubts."

The Rhino so routinely pokes at the News & Record that it has become as predictable as patterned wallpaper. So, thank you, Ed Cone, for setting the record straight about our coverage of Fortress Re, which is critiqued by The Rhino today (not posted). Ed has written about the reinsurance company for Forbes, and he knows what he's talking about.

There's a reason you don't see us do much with political polls and here is the best example I can think of. The Pew Research Center is a reputable company with, best I can tell, high standards. Here's its latest survey synopsis:

"The latest national survey of 1,972 registered voters by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted in two waves over a seven-day period, finds that the president's large margin of support in the initial period (Sept. 8-10) dissipated in the polling conducted Sept. 11-14. Among all registered voters Bush initially led Kerry by 52%-40%. However, the second wave of interviewing shows the race even among registered voters, at 46%-46%. When the sample is narrowed to likely voters, Bush holds a statistically insignificant lead of 47%-46% in the second wave, down from a huge 54%-38% advantage he held in the first wave of interviews."

Want a different result? Go here. Or here. Or here.

Because political polls measure the daily horse race and don't shed much light, we rarely display them prominently in the newspaper, a point partisans on both sides occasionally complain about when it suits their purposes. They're political meringue: lightweight, vaguely interesting and with no real significance.

Frankly, I've always wondered why so many news organizations sponsor them. I know that political junkies enjoy them. But I also khow expensive they are. I wish WE had that money to spend on content that would enlighten readers.

A few journalists here are going to Cleveland to a Bruce Springsteen concert next month. But not just any Springsteen concert. This is the Vote for Change tour, which is really an anti-President Bush musical tour.

Is it a conflict of interest for a journalist to go to the concert? When one of my staff asked, I ruled that it isn't, under the belief that it's simple entertainment. But it looks like I'm in the minority among editors. According to Editor & Publisher, most of the big cheeses at newspapers they contacted said, no way. Apparently it is being viewed as a political fund-raiser, which is strictly forbidden by traditional journalism ethics.

The journalists going aren't attending as supporters of the politics; they're there as supporters of the music. I happen to be a Bruce fan -- a fan of his music, not necessarily his politics. (I'm not going.) I thought of it this way: I may go see "Fahrenheit 911" or read "Unfit for Command" for the entertainment value but not agree with the politics. What about the fund-raising aspect? Tickets are in the $75 range, which is par for the course for concerts like this, so the money may as well be coming out of the artist's pocket. And, as someone else wrote, does this mean that every time you buy a bottle of Heinz ketchup you're contributing to the Kerry campaign?

So, rock 'n' roll trumps politics. But I could be wrong on this. What do you think?

We're starting a new column tomorrow on traffic and transportation. The idea is to help readers navigate their way through an increasingly congested Triad. Got questions and issues? Contact Eric Townsend at etownsend@news-record.com. I've already passed your concerns about Hill Street and Wendover to him, Mr. Sun.

As a result, we're moving Inside Scoop, not this one, but the newspaper version, to Monday.

Of all the things I love about my job, managing the comics isn't one of them. Good comics are hard to find, readers hate any changes to the comics pages, and the writers continue to push the envelope in areas of politics and taste. All that said, I know that readers love their comics.

So now we get an advisory from one of our syndicates that says this:

"In the 'Sally Forth' strip dated September 26, 2004, the third panel of the Sunday strip contains the following dialogue: 'Chechnyan rebels have just gotten past security and are fast approaching the front desk.'
"That strip was submitted for publication in May and had already been shipped when news broke of the terrorist attack in Russia. It is not a comment on, nor a reaction to, the attack, and is in no way meant to make light of this horrific event.
"As used in the strip, the Chechnyan rebels reference was one of a series of items meant to show that Sally was being asked to handle an ever-growing impossible for her to accomplish series of tasks."

The message goes on to suggest we may want to include an editor's note with the strip. We're not going to pull the strip in or insert an editor's note. Our readers are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between a comic strip like Sally Forth and real life. I am, however, taking odds on whether we get any complaints.

Columnists take a lot of flak, particularly when they wade into some hot topics. Our local columnist, Lorraine Ahearn, went to Riverfest in Eden earlier this month, wrote a column about her disappointment with it, and has been called smug, arrogant and a variety of other terms, some not suitable for the Internet. (Well, they probably are suitable for the Internet, but not suitable for this blog.) Eden's director of business development even invited her to stay home next year.

On Sunday, Ed Hardin wrote about the N.C. State-Ohio State football game, and I found these comments from readers in my mailbox:

"This article is so one-sided and biased it ranks up there with the current scandals surrounding CBS & Dan Rather."

"As an Ohio State alumni & fan, your article is the same as the other newspaper articles from the losing team's newspapers of the last 28 teams OSU has beaten in the last 30 games. OSU is always called lucky, slow, lifeless, etc. I used to get offended, but now I just enjoy the W's!"

"This article seems slanted toward your demographic location, while leaning away from the realities of the game. Actually State was given 7 extra points due to the official's missed call on A.J. Hawks' second interception of the day. Put that in your next overblown article, with a little less wine."

I got six like that. Can you imagine what Ed got? And the column wasn't even a homer column for State. Here is what the columnist at N.C. State's hometown newspaper wrote.

The comments don't sting. In fact, we welcome them. Columnists are paid to bring insight, understanding, interesting stories and a point of view to the paper. Both Ed and Lorraine do that. They write favorably about a variety of topics. They call them like they see them, which means they will make some people uncomfortable. In some cases, they even cost us readers. But if they can inspire readers to respond, that's the best result. A bored reader frightens editors.

I don't always agree with them, but we give our columnists a wide latitude. We give letter writers who object to them the same latitude.

I don't have much to say about the CBS scandal that hasn't been said by other commentators. For those interested in the take by journalists about the effect on CBS and journalism, the Poynter site is a good reference. There are so many posts at different parts of the site, don't just stop at the first. Keep scrolling.

Jay Rosen at PressThink says this in a long post about CBS: "A clerk who understood the Net, read the blogs and followed the press could have seen the danger signs accumulating day-by-day."

Indeed. Some online things we at the News & Record don't do well, but several of us try to read the local blogs every day. There we find what you find: news tips, criticism of us and interesting commentary. Some of it we agree with and act upon, some we don't. All of it has the potential to make us a smarter newspaper. So, keep posting and we'll keep learning.

I got an e-mail from one of my pen pals about the play of this story on Tuesday's front page.

"I was astonished to discover yesterday's front-page story about the machines at UNCG that dispense video games and movies. Surely front-page stories should have some news value?"

He went on to speculate that I must be secretly embarrassed about some of the stories we put on the front page.

It's an interesting side of newspapering that some people think we only publish those stories and photographs we enjoy or agree with. In fact, we do publish stories on the front page that I'm only vaguely interested in. But, fortunately for the readers, the newspaper isn't my personal playground. Editors consider what we think readers might be interested in or should know. Some days we're more successful in that than others. Some days we have better stories to choose from, too.

Was the UNCG story worth A1? It's an arguable point, and I'll cede that it could have run other places in the paper just as easily. Still, it was something a little off the beaten path for our readers, particularly those who haven't been on a college campus since the 20th century. Maybe they learned something about a part of the city and a large population -- students -- they had forgotten existed.

The front page is occasionally a moving target. What runs there depends what's happening in town and in the world, the photography we have and the mix of story topics available, among other things. We're trying to emphasize local more and more, and we're trying to find interesting articles that tell you something about the community you might not know. That occasionally upsets the traditional newspaper readers. Heck, it puts me outside my comfort zone some days, too.

But if we go off kilter, we welcome the feedback. Besides, we get to try it again in 24 hours.

While we don't define ourselves by awards by any means, it sure feels good to get them. The nation's most prestigious features contest, the Missouri Lifestyle Journalism Awards, just announced that the News & Record won third place in General Excellence. This is the third consecutive year we’ve placed in the General Excellence category, one of only two newspapers in the country to do so. (General Excellence is the top category.)

I'm honored to be associated with journalists who do such fine work, day-in and day-out. I don't tell them that enough.

Mr. Sun has some wonderful advice to those of us on East Market Street trying to figure out how to publish a better newspaper. "I realize that journalism is a discipline with standards that are sacred cows. I don't think allowing a writer's voice to shine through necessarily interferes with the biggest of those standards -- objectivity. It's worth considering."

Adding personality to the paper hasn't been lost on us. We've been attempting to do that in a variety of ways for the past few years, adding more columnists and changing the mix of front page stories, for instance.

Honestly, we've approached "voice" in stories with some timidity. A year ago, we began talking to writers about telling stories in different ways. We have had some success. Mike Kernels has a distinct voice. As does Jim Schlosser and Margaret Moffett Banks. So do many of our sportswriters.

But we still have a ways to go, and we know it. Adding voice while writing news is more difficult than some would imagine. Not everyone has the singular expressive talents of a Schlosser, Kernels or Banks. (I know that I don't.) Sometimes adding the personal touch to stories falls flat or sounds self-absorbed. And one man's voice is another's bias.

So, we're taking great care on this slope. But we're working on it. The blogs, I suspect, are helping some of us hone the ability to write with voice. We aren't stopping at the four we have now, either. More will come.

As for those nice things you say about us, I'll cop only to the imperfect label. My sister would add that "funny" is correct only if it precedes "looking."

Is anyone surprised by the latest Gallup poll about media credibility? The Baltimore Sun talks about it here (registration required.)

I'm not. We do it to ourselves. With all the talk about Jayson Blair and Dan Rather, you can also die a death by 1,000 cuts. Here's an example of one down in Miami in which a quote was misunderstood or mistranslated and ran around the world a couple times before it was tracked down. Didn't destroy anyone's career, but it was just plain wrong.

After all this, who's going to blame readers for being skeptical? Those of us in the news business, we've got one heckuva hill to climb. Suggestions on where to start?

Ann Morris, our managing editor, was called on to speak to some journalism classes at Elon University last week. Many of the students there are on the broadcast and PR track, rather than the ink-stained wretch track. Who knows, maybe they think newspapers are less glamorous? Go figure. Anyway, rather than give the stock, boring speech as I would have, she and a couple editors came up with a top 10 list of reasons to be a reporter.

10. You don't have to dress like a banker.
9. You get to watch TV people with nice hair read the words you wrote.
8. You're too smart to be a lawyer.
7. As long as they don't know your salary, everybody thinks you're cool for working at a newspaper.
6. There's a hot newsroom singles scene.
5. You get to make powerful people squirm.
4. The mayor knows your name, but so does the Mafia button man you wrote about.
3. Ernest Hemingway was once a reporter and went on to become famous, drunk, suicidal author.
2. You can pretend to work but actually surf the Internet, feed a blog, and answer lots of e-mail.
1. You can change the world.

All true. Hemingway is actually the reason I got into the game. Not so much the alcoholism, chauvinism and suicidal tendencies, but rather the adventurous lifestyle, hunting and fishing around the world. Purely vicarious, unfortunately.

Whenever we publish an article about "unorthodox" behavior, some readers criticize us for glorifying the behavior. I don't even think unorthodox is the correct adjective. It's more like "behavior frowned upon by the mainstream." For instance, when we wrote about teenagers getting tattoos before heading off to college, we heard that we were encouraging the behavior. The same when we wrote a feature about cruising. And now we have Saturday's article about an effort by the Triad Equality Alliance to educate people about the normalcy of homosexuals.

The e-mail came in:

"This type of promotion is sickening to the soul and a further attempt by the media to form public opinion that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is normal. It is not normal. There are no gay genes within the DNA structure. Also 84% of Americans support a Federal Marriage Amendment and the belief that this type of lifestyle is wrong."

Or this:

"This article is an abomination to God and Humanity. This dude who says he is sorry for what he did to his ex-wife and children is a liar. This is a way to destroy the United States as they did to the Greece and Roman Empires. Go back to the closet. This is a Dead Issue from Dead People who wish Death to American Society. They want to only satisfy their own lusts at societies expense. Unadultaried Selfishness."

Well.

One of the core purposes of a newspaper is to deliver the news. These billboards are that. We also like to treat people as people. They are our neighbors and co-workers and family members. Discussing gays and lesbians as if they are political concepts rather than people dehumanizes them. And no amount of wishing or ranting will make them go away or turn straight.

By publishing this article on the front page, we aren't promoting homosexuality. We're simply telling the community about what some of its members are doing. It's one more way to give voice to a minority group that is different than the general population. That voice -- as are the voices of all minorities -- is important to hear. If it breaks down prejudice and engenders understanding, it fuels the civic conversation.

Ignoring it is sticking your head in the sand, which we try to avoid. It's hard to breathe down there.

Doug Clifton, editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and one of the first newspaper editors to blog, has quit his blog. It took too much time. I hear that. My advice, which I occasionally take, is to keep entries short.

Addendum: Clifton didn't link on his blog, nor did he allow comments. That lack of interaction may have something to do with the relatively small number of page views.

Newspapers and blogs continue to battle each other, and I'm left wondering how I could be missing all the blood and gore and excitement.

There are editors dropping their blogs. There are editors dropping their staff members' blogs. And then there are newspaper columnists who fight among themselves about blogs.

Mr. Shu wades in, talking about our blogs in a favorable way, certainly more flattering than we deserve. We are trying to respect the issues of objectivity, but at the same time we want to tell readers what we know in a timely and convenient way. Like most everyone online, we're want to reach more people with information that we think they should know.

I doubt you'll find us wading to the far reaches of the blogosphere, voicing strident opinion. And we probably won't use the blogs to break big stories. (If we got our hands on a CBS forgery story, I am pretty sure we'd break that in the newspaper.) But what is on our sites shouldn't be sterile or, as in other criticism of newspaper writing, without personality, style or voice.

We're still learning the new technology. Heck, Ed Cone had to teach me about permalinks. And you will see more blogs from our staff.

But the fact is, this isn't rocket science, even for clueless newspaper people. (Even I am doing it, a fact that stuns and embarrasses my teenagers.) Newspaper editors fighting it don't seem to know that they've already lost the battle. The only way to win now is to figure out how to play.

Thanks to Nicole Ortega and Kevin Lockamy on the newspaper's interactive staff, we have a wonderful photo/audio history of rock 'n' roll here. It's part of Go Triad's cover story on the future of rock in the paper and on racks today. And don't miss the beautiful cover by artist Margaret Baxter. It could hang in a gallery. Check it out. As editor Jeri Rowe says, "you can almost smell the patchouli."

Do you think that editorial page editors believe their endorsements wash over the masses and inspire readers to march in lock step to the polls to vote the way the newspaper wants? Read this article in AJR and think again.

The Washington City Paper's media column describes the scary prospect facing many newspapers these days, including the News & Record. According to focus groups run by The Washington Post, more and more younger readers are getting their news online, rather than from newsprint, and they have been trained that news is free. "The good news is they're extremely familiar with the paper. The bad news is that they don't want to buy it. News is like air, and we've taught them that," says a Post source who has watched focus groups.

We struggle with the lack of interest of younger readers in the newspaper. We struggle, too, with the knowledge that we essentially give away much of our content online. (That's why only selected items are posted.) As a result, the newspaper is changing-- slowly now, but faster soon. More local relevancy. More voices. More vibrancy. Smarter writing. More exclusives. More people you know.

And we're working on the site.

It's a challenge, perhaps as great as any newspapers have faced. If nothing else, rising to it will make us a much better paper. (For the record -- because it seems as if many people think we're losing circulation -- we've grown each of the last three years.)