News-Record.com

For John Robinson:

All you say is true, but it assumes that your readers all are connected to the internet. That is where I believe you are wrong. Have you done a survey to see how many readers actually look to the internet for news? The idea of giving the reader what they want instead of what they need (which is accurate and clear reporting on all issues affecting their lives) is also wrong. It is a consumerist notion, not a responsible newspaper notion. Leonad Pitts pointed this problem up in his lates column on experiments with news in Chile. Hello! Good luck with the blog.
From an old dedicated to he notion of of not giving the people what they want but what they need.

David M. Spear

Interesting discussion that must inevitably skip to the question of the role of the front page. Is A1 the place for the most important stories? Or the ones that get people talking? Or the ones that you won't see in the NYTimes or USA TODAY?

I agree with David's point that the national and world wires can still be valuable for a local newspaper, especially for those who don't fall prey to the new media machine. But should that news be on A1 each day?

I'll say no. The paper's front page should be unique. As long as the rest of the A section is a reliable carrier of the day's important news, everyone can still be informed.

David, we're not saying that we're going to give readers only what they want to the detriment of what they need. We're saying that we're emphasizing local news on the front page because we know they don't look to us for day-to-day national and international news. They can get the wire service stories anywhere anytime, not just the Internet but on a dozen channels on TV. That's not entirely true regarding local news.

You're right that our readers don't all use the Internet for news, but I believe that the vast majority of them who care get most of the headlines from television. We still give them national and international stories....just not on the front page.

It is difficult to know whether the letter writer's chief interest is the sacrifice borne by our troops; or whether it is to spotlight the losses we are experiencing in Iraq. I agree with your position, but perhaps for a different reason than yours.

It is arguable that a microscopic level of attention given to periodic, relatively small numbers of our troops' deaths in Iraq will weaken the nation's resolve in opposing terror. The losses we are sustaining, although tragic for each individual and family involved, are small compared with those we suffered, for instance, in World War II and the Civil War.

During the seven months prior to the election cycle, there was a steady stream of such stories put out by the usual wire services. It is hard to know whether this was an attempt to influence the election. The letter writer must be writing about the wire reports published during the period after the election, and especially after the Battle of Fallujah, which were more scarce in terms of vivid descriptions of troop losses.

Our opponents' objective is to strike us in a manner which maximizes economic damage to our nation. As we lose economic strength, we then would also lose military strength and the ability to defend our freedom. (Our resolve to oppose them also might be shaken badly under these circumstances). Our ability to defend the existence of the state of Israel would erode. It is, indeed, possible that we are not pursuing issues related to homeland security and potential military actions in a sufficiently aggressive way.

Instead of talking up military deaths, let's talk them down. To the extent that the wire services have unnecessarily magnified our losses, perhaps we should look to other sources for information. We will get a decidedly left of center perspective if we continue to rely on sources like the AP, the New York Times, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Baltimore Sun. Even though we may not be enamored with the ownership, would it not be possible to use articles from the Washington Times and UPI, if not merely for balance? The editorial standards of the Washington Times are actually pretty good. Are there not other sources of national and international news that are moderate to conservative in orientation to provide this balance? (The monolithic nature of the currently available services is so severe that even the FOX News website uses AP!)

Nonetheless, I think you are on the right track; and I agree that local and regional coverage certainly is the greatest source of added value you provide.

Joe -- I know people who've worked at Fox, The Washington Times and UPI. They're good journalists, but there are plenty of reasons why they didn't stay put.

In fact, they're really not equivalents, even aside from any political thought. CNN's reporting resources dwarf those of Fox, which essentially perfected the presentation of pundit-driven news. Once-proud UPI fell on tough times years and years ago. Those aren't value statements, just simple facts.

AP, the NYTimes, the LATimes, etc., are used so frequently because they have decades-long traditions of dedication and reliability.

My primary concern is with the written word; and not with broadcast journalism.

The fact that some journalists may not "stay put' does not concern me nearly as much as whether the editorial standards are good, and whether objectivity is being demonstrated. The Washington Times and UPI do not nearly have the resources of some of the other organizations-- this is undoubtedly true-- and UPI has certainly dwindled from its former position in the market. This does not mean, however, that using them as part of the mix would not add overall balance.

As for the statements regarding AP, The NY Times and the like possessing dedication and reliability, this is also true in some respects. (This was also felt to be true of CBS for many years.) News coverage in the Times, however, has lurched further leftward, particularly over the last several years, to such an extent that some conservatives refuse even to look at it. You may recall the stories of the editor at the Times having to give up his job and the reporter falsifying stories within the last several years. The AP and the New York Times' coverage of our activities in Iraq during the election cycle was relentlessly negative. The fact that both are headquartered in New York City, the quintessential blue state metropolis, and are populated with reporters and editors of a blue state persuasion, yields palpable implications which are not unnoticed by educated readers. Is it not bothersome that so many readers intuitively and automatically discount what is being presented?

This is not the fault of the News and Record, which cannot have the resources to present its own stories in these areas. One of the next tests of national coverage will be the likely upcoming Supreme Court nominations. If the past has been any indication, the tone of coverage will be fairly predictable. I reiterate my concern that the AP has a near monopolistic hold on print journalism as distributed to dailies across the nation, and that the other organizations frequently used tend to think and act in lockstep fashion. A better mix needs to be created and found.

Without getting into the discussion of whether the AP is allowing its bias reflect on its war coverage, I'm not aware that The Washington Times has a wire service. At least it hasn't tried to sell me. UPI is a wire service, of course, and is owned by the same people who own The Washington Times, last I heard. All that said, we can only afford one comprehensive news service, and AP has a much broader network of newspapers, reporters and news coverage than UPI.

"The course we've chosen is to emphasize local. It is, for now, one area where we have a degree of expertise and where we can provide exclusive content." I"ve thought about this statement for two days now and it bothers me. I suggest that the emphasis on "local" is the easiest subject for you to cover and doesn't require more than a general expertise of the subject matter. I also suggest that the local newspaper, the essential ingredient of a citizen based participatory democracy, is heading for extinction. I've been reading the N&R for more than 50 years. I can also remember the time when newspapers were the only game in town. Newspapers could and did enlighten, inform, make us mad, and expose to us wrong doing with the mission that "information" would help citizens participate in their democracy. Your paper, as most other local, national, and international, tout science and technology as the engine that will drive economies in the future. I wonder if the paper, by endorsing science and technology, also has the responsibility to manage its reader’s expectations of what might or might not happen, the policy issues, the consequences, and when or if it will create an economic revival. Science and technology is complex, fast changing and highly specialized. The public policy issues created by this "new economy" are not easy for average people to understand. I can turn my computer on, surf the Internet, and perform a few other functions. That doesn't make me scientifically literate nor learned about the complexities and implications of technology and science. I deeply feel that your most important responsibility to the community is to bring clarity, understanding, and explanations out of complexity. With the billions of words out there in cyberspace, I need a source that I can trust to separate the reality from the hype and explain the big picture in everyday words that I can understand. I don't want technocrats and scientists making decisions for a citizenry that is excluded from participating because we don't understand the public policy issues that arise from fast changing technology. I hope that the emphasis on "local" does not come at the expense of an ongoing search to find better ways to give us the "information" we need to participate in a global technical community.
In closing:
1. Will you ever hire a technology editor or beat reporter?
2. How are you going to persuade this first generation of youngsters and the next that have grown up with the Internet and continual connectivity that they even need to read a newspaper?
3. I wonder if journalism schools should change their core curriculums to better prepare journalists for this "new economy."
4. With the emphasis on life long learning should experienced journalists take refresher courses in science, technology, and globalization issues.
5. Is significant job growth in biotechnology and information technology decades away?
Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts with you.