News-Record.com

Ms. Ladd didn't answer a valid question. What is the newspeg for this story? Why is it relevant to life in Greensboro or the culture in this town? If it's about entertainment, put it in the entertainment tabloid that you publish on Thursdays. Ms. Ladd is right, that the story is tamer than what one would see on the Jerry Springer show, but since when does a newspaper use Jerry Springer as the yardstick by which it judges the quality of its content? Newspapers have a greater responsibilty to their readers than Jerry Springer has to his viewers. In fact, Mr. Springer airs what he does not because he wants to inform the public about a certain issue, but because by pandering to the public's baser instincts, he gets good ratings, is allowed to stay on the air and gets paid plenty. Maybe Ms. Ladd needs to get her own daytime Springeresque TV show. She would be happier with the subject latitude these shows have, make more money and we wouldn't be subjected to her extraordinarily bad news judgement.

This story seems to run into problems that are fundamental for why people aren't reading the paper:

1) The story appeared online a few days ago.

2) It's not local. What about this story makes me want to subscribe to the N&R? Nothing. It's not unique content for the newspaper.

3) It's not useful (unless I am planning a trip to Chicago, but even if I was, the N&R would be the last place I would look for Chicago trip planning.)

Why not take up those column inches with some real, local, useful, interesting information? I don't get what is wrong with that. Sure, it's harder to do than ripping a story off the wire and plopping it on a page, but it's what readers want.

I actually would argue that the N&R's Life section SHOULD be radically different from the Wash. Post or the NY Times Sunday magazines. Those are national newspapers with national audiences. They can afford to put these kinds of stories in their publication because they have VERY large national audiences. They also have OTHER sections in their paper to run more useful info (not that they do.) Their Sunday magazines are one section out of about 9 that appear on Sunday. In the N&R the Life section is one of four on a daily basis -- and the only one that is devoted to a certain type of content.

I have to disagree with the other posters (and Susie) on several points:

1) A city paper's bread and butter is local news, A&E and feature stories - sure. But does that mean that none of its content should have a broader appeal? Plenty of things in "Life" don't have or need a "news-peg" -- they're feature stories. The attraction of the story - which I thought was great - was that it's an unusual slice of culture from beyond the Gate City.

I don't think having the occasional colorful piece that has to do with the A&E scene elsewhere or the larger culture is going to doom the paper or carve away at its credibility. In fact, it might make people my age pick up the paper once in a while.

Ninety-eight percent of the paper is "useful" - informative, local, speaking directly to the community. There should be no place in that other two percent for something that's simply fun? If this is the prevailing sentiment I think people are missing something about the history and purpose of newspapers...

2) If you're really shocked and appalled by this rather tame story you just aren't paying attention to the reality of the culture. As Susan Ladd said - there's plenty on daytime TV that's worse (and less amusing) than this story. If you want a small taste of it check out a story I just blogged about a porn company that just filmed a woman killing a buffalo and then having sex next to it:

http://joekillianblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/redneck-porn-vs-academic-porn.html

Let's reserve our outrage for something worth getting worked up about.

Does it matter what section of the paper a story resides? Do parents only give their kids the life section to read or do kids rummage through the paper until they find what they want? I can't imagine parent's locking the paper away from their kids. Usually it sits on the kitchen table or a coffee table in a big heap until someone eventually carries it to the recycle bin. Hey, I got stuck with that job when I was a kid and I'm still doing it!

But if I'm wrong, then why not have a Kid's section of the paper where any questionable material is strictly off-limits?

Just a suggestion.

A couple thoughts: If we had a larger staff, there's a good chance we'd run little wire copy any day, but we don't. So we look elsewhere. We didn't run the story in question because it had a local peg or because we thought people would fly to Chicago to see it. We published it because it was just interesting, a little slice of something happening elsewhere that's kind of interesting. If you don't think it's interesting, that's OK. There were two other stories on that page, both of them local that might have interested you.

I'll take your word for it that the story appeared online although I couldn't find it in a simple search. I doubt many of our readers found it either so it was probably new to them.

I guess we COULD publish a section for children but do we put the comics there? Do you think the kids would read it? And do you think it is possible to publish such a section that wouldn't have content that offends someone and still be interesting?

I think there are a lot of things in the paper to express outraged about, but they have more to do with man's inhumanity to man and hypocrisy in government and the like.

John you remind me of a pregnant teenager - lame excuse after lame excuse.

While I wasn't offended by the story, I think that Susan's comment that it was tamer than the Jerry Springer show is pretty lame. I know I don't read the newspaper for the same reasons I would watch daytime tv; I might be wrong, but I think that's the case for most readers. Should the fact that a story is not the worst thing out there -- apparently, Joe found some porn that he thinks is worse -- is a poor defense.

Yellow dog, I don't know about the pregnant teenagers you know -- :) -- but I will point out that there's a difference between excuses and explanations. I'm explaining here, not intending to offer excuses.

Becky, you're right. Springer was probably a bad example. His program is not the standard we use. Heaven forbid. I'd say that you could hold the story in question story up against virtually anything on any channel at any time (other than Disney and Nickelodeon) and deem the story less offensive.

What i take issue with isn't even that people are complaining and there are worse things out there - the dead animal porn is absolutely worse, but what wouldn't that be worse than?

My problem is having read the story it's hard for me to understand how any adult American could really be offended by it. And if anyone thinks their children's minds are going to be warped by a story like this then they should probably keep them away from the entire news section - where stories of dead soldiers, religious fundamentalist terrorists, racial bigotry, horrendous fires, terrible accidents and contentious politics are the general rule. The sports section is probably a no-go too - drugs, violence, greed, envy, pride.

I don't think any paper should sacrifice a Life section worthy of intelligent adults (interesting culture pieces, discussions of music and literature, slice of life stories from outside our limited personal orbit) to protect children from the knowlege of things that exist legally and avoid offending adults with particularly delicate sensibilities.

A kid's section whose aim is to be so bland they couldn't run any comics outside of The Family Circus and maybe Mark Trail (oh wait...that's gone...) would be, to my mind, a waste of space. If you don't want your children reading it, don't let them. If you don't want to read it, turn the page.

I usually offer my comments as suggestions for improvement and hope they are taken with that spirit.

So, please don't be offended when I say that readers need a compelling reason to bother to pick up the paper each day.

They are very, very busy people. They need REAL good reasons to devote time to something. The Internet is a place where they can get breaking news and do useful things (pay bills, plan dining outings, make vacation plans, etc).

The newspaper has to be relevant to people. I have no doubt the story in question was interesting. But, why would anyone read it? Why would it make the list of reasons to continue to subscribe to the paper? I just can't see how it would... I am exposed to enough "interesting" stories each day on the Internet -- I would appreciate a LOCAL interesting story that actually -- maybe -- was something I could use.

For example: Father's Day is coming up. Why not tell me 10 places to take dad for Father's Day so I can start planning now. Or, Memorial Day is coming up. Why not tell me of the best parks to visit or something to do on that day so I can start planning -- or thinking about this. Or, school is out. Give me the top 10 cool things to do with my kids this summer. THOSE CAN be interesting AND useful AND local. They can make the newspaper INDISPENSIBLE.

Good luck, as always...

For the record, my 12-year-old son reads the paper on a daily basis, mostly comics, but sometimes the front page and the editorial page. He's just starting to get interested in and understand the editorial cartoons. I have never considered locking the paper away, partly because I'm a serious news junkie and partly because my husband spent 25 years as a newspaper reporter. So I like to think I can recognize worthless content when I see it. This story fits something my husband likes to say. "Here we have a classic example of the public's right to know running smack dab into the public's right not to care." Some of you may have heard that one before. No, I don't think you should publish just a children's section but you should realize that some sections children are more likely to read than others.

I disagree with Joe when he lumps this story under culture. If by saying "culture," you mean highbrow stuff, no, there is nothing cultured about it. If by "culture," you are referring to an activity that one ethnic group participates in, then no, I know people of many races and none of them does anything like this. Joe doesn't want a Life section worthy of intelligent adults sacrificed to protect children. Neither do I, so tell me what about this story was either intelligent or adult? Newspapers differ from electronic media in that they can take a story and explore it from many angles, consider them all carefully and present balanced coverage because they don't have the time constraints a TV news show does. They can treat any subject more carefully because they don't have to tell it in 2.5 minutes

(The first part of my response got posted before I was finished, so here's the rest)
It is because a newspaper has more time to make story picks (especially with features) that it choice of stories should show more judgement and consideration. There are a million stories out there in Greensboro that are stand much taller than this one. And there have to be a trillion stories nationwide that merit selection over this one. Then N&R does a mostly good job of covering the important stories and treating important topics. Don't squander your respectabilty and credibility on this kind of crud.

I don't think the story was "unintelligent" at all. Coverage of interesting cultural happenings isn't limited to what some readers would call "high brow" or what could be termed "ethnic."

The fact that burlesque is being mixed with pro-wrestling and there's a significant audience for it is, by any but the most narrow of definitions, an interesting story about our culture. It's something about which many of us know nothing, and many of us are interested in learning.

I enjoyed it. I know some other people who did. It was sent to me via e-mail and I know someone who clipped it and sent it to a friend. Maybe our difference of opinion is generational - who knows?

But the important point is this -- the fact that you didn't get it or didn't enjoy it doesn't make it worthless. There are plenty of people with dissimilar tastes who are going to be reading the News and Record on any given day.

I don't particularly care about a paper's Business section and, if I had my druthers, I'd replace it with more Life stuff or better comics, even more Sports. But though this is true every day I don't fume about it. I skim or skip the Business section. If I don't enjoy a particular story in another section or don't get why they ran it I assume someone else will have enjoyed it - which is almost certainly true - it's just that I didn't.

I've never understood why people don't understand that you can enjoy a publication without liking everything that's in it - without its every word, picture and sentiment lining up perfectly with your ethical, religious or political beliefs, or even your views on media. I think cable television and talk radio have hurt our ability to deal rationally with diverse media in that way - made us expect that we'll be fed what we want and only what we want, because after all FOX News will do that for us, or Air America, or Rush Limbaugh - any number of cut-to-order, maintain-you-narrow-worldview media outlets that won't push us or expose us to anything with which we're unfamiliar or ask us to tolerate things others might enjoy.

The Life section's consistently good at the N&R - and almost always has a number local and area offerings. Wire stuff is a supplement. Seems a little silly to make such a flap about something so small rather than simply chalking it up to our having a city paper interested in appealing to a diverse readership.

I'm not going to question the validity of the story. I agree with Joe that there are daily examples of things I'm not interested in.

To me, this story fit better in the Life section than anywhere else. The N&R has a Kid's Page devoted to kid's stuff. That doesn't mean the entire Life section should be devoted to kid's stuff any more than it means the entire newspaper should be devoted to kid's stuff.

The only real issue to me is whether the material is obscene or not. If it is obscene, it doesn't belong in a local newspaper anywhere. If it's not, then it shouldn't matter where it is. Although, good taste should be applied. Probably wouldn't fit too good on the obituary page, for instance.

Actually, I think the story would fit the Go Triad section that publishes on Thursday the best. I also make the observation that the person who defends that story and its placement so vociferously also (according to his own statements) visits animal porn sites.

Oh, come on. At least read the linked blog entry. It's not an animal porn site - it's a news story about a porn movie that was recently filmed and which the porn industry is protesting.

But if I did visit animal porn sites (which is a heck of a thing to toss at a guy when you haven't even grasped what he's referenced) - would my points about the importance of diversity in media and intelligent, interesting wire stories in the Life section somehow be invalidated? I've actually read and accurately processed what you're saying without jumping to conclusions about it or looking for a way to dismiss you before I've finished. Please do me the same favor.