News-Record.com

She is just a stripper? Seems like the headline should have been cabbie backs players story.

I have to assume you're referring to the blog-post I made about yesterday's AP story on the Duke hire, Jack.

While I'm agnostic on what happened at the party itself and we certainly don't have enough information to run our mouths about it I have to, based on what is known, disagree with your asessement of what the cabbie said as "backing" anyone's story. The best that can be said, from the point-of-view of the defense, is that the cabbie didn't hear Seligmann say anything at all about the party or a stripper. I think it's a huge leap from "didn't hear anything" from one player to "backs players' story."

Since the defense's stated position is that there was no assault at the party and that none of the players were involved in an assault the cabbie's statements thus far have actually been pretty damning. He's saying he did hear people from the same party talking about a stripper in a derisive way and that, from what he heard, he thought someone had been hurt. If that's backing any of the players' stories I really can't see how.

It should have been player!And he did excatly that!If I was a fair and balanced reporter, I would have led with, this news.

At the risk of being on-topic, congrats to Joe and I share your blog-agony about posting. Ever decide what you're going to do?

Thanks, Sue.

Well - as you can see from this post reporting and blogging don't always go hand-in-hand. Expressing any personal feelings I have about the day's events - even those on which I'm not reporting - on a blog will lead some to question my objectivity. Some people, as Jack just demonstrated, will even decide my re-posting of AP stories in some way compromises me if what I post (or re-post) doesn't line up with his ideology.

I enjoy blogging - but I enjoy reporting more. For now I'm scaling back the amount of blogging I do, avoiding blogging about politics or local stories and trying to figure out whether there's a way I can keep an interesting blog and also avoid conflicts as a reporter. Some of the other reporters in the news-room have told me they shut down personal blogs for just this reason. We'll see what happens.

I hardly think that anyone can come to any conclusion whatsoever about the meaning, intent, or context when one hears the statement, "She's just a hooker."
Right offhand, I can think of about 20 things that statement could be referencing.
Not enough info.

Sorry, I meant to use the politically correct term "stripper" in my above comment, not hooker.

Joe, take a cue/clue from JR and Allen. You can blog. And you should blog.

Joe,

This is a serious question with no presumptions on my part. Do you think you can cover abortion related topics objectively?

I'd like to think so, David.

I've never had to cover any news event dealing specifically with abortion - but there have been many instances wherein I've had to cover things or people about which/whom I felt strongly and, with my professional game-face on, I did fine.

Some years ago in Connecticut I had to cover a protest where Fred Phelps was the big attraction. At that point Phelps was most famous for having picketed Matthew Shephard's funeral and creating a website - www.godhatesfags.com - where you could listen to what was advertised as "Matthew Shephard screaming in Hell." More recently Phelps has been picketing the funerals of American service men and women who have died in Iraq because, he says, they're defending a country full of homosexuals, abortionists and assorted other sinners and a culture that is indefensible.

I have a number of very close friends and family who are gay. I started a gay/straight alliance at my high school. There's no confusion - in my head or in the minds of others - on where I am on this issue. But I interviewed Phelps with the same professionalism and courtesy I would have given anyone else and shook his hand when the interview was over. Of course, the local news was taping just as I did that and it ran as B-roll of the protest that night, much to the amusement of my friends and family.

But the point is -- every reporter has his political and social views, his experiences and personal baggage. If you're writing news rather than a column you just have to leave all of it at home.

My personal blog is just that - personal. I've never censored myself on it and never shot for any sort of objectivity. It was, in this strange exhibitionist computer age, the equivalent of the me you'd get if we were having a beer together or I was writing you a personal e-mail. Because of the nature of blogs it was also there for anyone and everyone to see. That is, of course, not the me you get when I'm reporting. I think anyone - from reporters to car salesmen to doctors and nurses - could say the same thing.

But people often have a hard time separating the blogger from the professional - particularly in a profession where objectivity is the goal. My nervousness about continuing to blog - at least in the way I have for years - is that on that day when I am called on to report on something directly related to abortion a reader or a source will not judge my reporting on its merits and its inherent fairness but instead, with some idea of where I may stand on the stories' issues personally as gleaned from my blog, just assume that I can't possibly be objective. The N&R's code of ethics for reporters does, in fact, warn reporters against political involvement, activism, publicly expressing their personal views on things about which they may have to report, etc. And it should. That's necessary.

I'm hardly the only reporter - or even the only N&R reporter, struggling with this problem. I know there are some of our younger reporters who've closed personal blogs for just this reason or who are nervous about contributing to the Life section's recurring "Vexed in the City" column about young people in the Triad because they fear that revealing even as much of their personal life as might be given away in an anecdotal personal column will bias sources against them in some way or make people question their reporting based on their personal lives. My having written about living with my girlfriend for that column has gotten me some angry letters and phone calls from very religious readers...and how do I know I won't be called upon to interview one of them tomorrow, or that some member of the city council about whom I'll have to report hasn't made the same judgement about my personal life through my blog, thereby tainting the reporter/source relationship before I've even had the chance to develop it?

It's something every journalist works out in his/her own way. Blogs have just added a new dimension to it.