These aren't the droids you're looking for
A letterwriter complained that a column by staff writers Katie Reetz and Michelle Jarboe in last week's paper encouraged promiscuous behavior among teenagers. She wrote: It appears that these women view "dating" as synonymous with "bedding," judging from their discussion of what a man should and should not wear in bed...on a date! and By trying to give a few readers a chuckle, your writers have put at risk many of your impressionable, dating, teenage readers. Do we really need more promiscuity, teenage pregnancies and STDs?
Allow me to be the first to say that we don't need more teenage pregnancies and STDs.
There's a common misperception among readers that we support the behaviors and opinions we write about. As such, stories about homosexuality, pre-marital sex, drug and alcohol use and the like usually evoke letters similar to the one above. We've even been criticized for writing about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for fear that we're stirring the pot of race relations.
Newspapers take their responsibility of being invited into readers' homes seriously. We know that just about every conceivable demographic group is represented among our 100,000 or so subscribers. Age differences, ethnic differences, religious differences, gender differences, political differences....well, you get the idea. What offends one amuses the next. What incites one inspires the next.
We aren't in the business of needlessly offending readers, yet in the process of reporting the news, we simply can't help it. If we report the world, we're going to report information that challenges a reader's view of that same world. It happens every day, and it happens in news coverage, in columns and in feature stories.
We're also well aware that the newspaper isn't the only information source available. (Would that it were!) Television -- particularly the programs teenagers watch -- puts more much random sex, violence, drug use and overall offensive behavior out there unchecked than newspapers. Same with movies and magazines. In reality, teenagers learn more about behaviors from their friends and family than they do from the newspaper.
Where's the line on what we will publish? We exercise journalistic judgment. We try not to publish information that will harm innocent people. We try not to publish information that will serve as a primer on bad behavior. For instance, we don't readily publish photos of dead bodies, although we will when we think it adds something substantial to the story. We didn't publish the Muhammed cartoon because we thought the story could be told better without it.
But we will publish columns in which people write about alternative lifestyles, different races and cultures, and religious beliefs and practices that may not be mainstream. We do so to inform people about different ideas, to push readers outside their intellectual comfort zones, to give them reason to think deeply about something alien to them, to walk a piece in someone else's shoes. In many cases, it reflects the reality of the world today.
Does it please everyone? Obviously not. Is it part of what a newspaper does? Absolutely.
Tuesday update: A couple hours after posting this, I received a phone call from a Summerfield woman upset because we published a photo on page A2 of a naked man riding a bicycle in the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle. You couldn't see anything risque, but still....
Comments (15)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
But did we "need" to know that your female reporters were "available". What's happened to mystery, romance, anticipation? What ever happened to the good old stand by of names on the bathroom wall?
Posted on June 19, 2006 3:24 PM
I don't think either Katie or Michelle are "available."
I could be wrong.
If so, I've got dibs.
Posted on June 19, 2006 4:50 PM
Did I read right that you're getting Chippendale-type reporters to augment the already lovely ladies? I'd like the RSS feed on that, please.
Posted on June 19, 2006 6:06 PM
Aw geez...like they needed another reason to fire me.
Now I'm going to have to start doing sit-ups...
Posted on June 19, 2006 6:12 PM
So where's the link to the column?
Posted on June 19, 2006 7:03 PM
Here you go, Beau.
And while trying to find the link, I ran across a mention of the piece on a blog dedicated to men wearing briefs. Lets just say they weren't fond of Katie's and Michelle's column for very different reasons than those mentioned above.
Posted on June 19, 2006 10:50 PM
I asked Michelle about this today. I don't wear briefs, but that's because I'm not in Calvin Klein model shape. I always thought that if you were in that sort of shape it was not only tolerated but encouraged.
Turns out I was wrong. According to Michelle.
Far as I can tell gay guys don't have any such moritorium on this kind of thing - which makes me wonder if the heterosexual female aversion to briefs is that they think they make men look feminine.
Posted on June 19, 2006 11:30 PM
OK, guys, you're getting a bit creepy here.
Posted on June 20, 2006 8:42 AM
I finally made the "switch" a few years ago. Because I listened to advice like this? No. Because I finally lost my distance-runner's physique and put on some pounds after years of sitting at a desk.
This is one of those issues in which women think they know what they're talking about but don't. No more so than men understand what it's like to wear the things they sell at Victoria's Secret.
Posted on June 20, 2006 9:25 AM
I'm not sure we need to "understand."
I'm wearing whatever it is they like to see.
Same logic at work at Victoria's Secret, I'm sure.
Posted on June 20, 2006 3:49 PM
That article is funny enough--and right enough--to justify its gentle sleazyness. But I have to say the N&R's efforts to appeal to the hip 20-something crowd often devolves into farce. Witness the article on the Entourage wanna-bes. Please don't give attention to people like that. Because if you do, there will be more people like that wanting to get in the paper.
Posted on June 20, 2006 5:05 PM
You'll read some letters to the editor from readers who didn't like that story, Scott. And that was the intent of this post.
If you view that story as one about local guys acting like lots of local guys act and trying out for an HBO show, I don't know why that's not a legitimate feature story. You read about the things they do and can draw your own conclusions about their behavior, good or bad. You've classified it as part of our effort "to appeal to the hip 20-something crowd" as there is something wrong about writing about that group in this way.
What is it? Does it not ring true? Does it read as if we're pandering? When we write about 20-somethings volunteering or in business or participating in sports, we aren't called out for attempting to appeal to a younger demographic. It's only when we write about "bad" behavior. Am I misinterpreting that?
Posted on June 20, 2006 6:11 PM
I wrote the Entourage thing and I've gotta tell you - I just can't see any part of that piece that holds the guys up as an example or is pandering to people who are their (or my) age.
I can't see anyone picking up the paper, turning to that and saying: "You know - this proves the paper is plugged in to people my age, they know what's going on and what we want to read - stories about people drinking and misbehaving in pursuit of money and flashy gadgets!"
There are plenty of things in the Life section these days that do appeal to people my age in a very real way - the gadget feature, Vexed in the City, On the Cheap. But the Entourage thing was just a funny feature story. Funny Ha-Ha in some parts. Funny strange in others. Cringingly funny throughout.
I'm not sure it matters how old you are.
Posted on June 20, 2006 6:53 PM
Heck, I'm 60 and have seen the same things that these two young ladies wrote about going on for many years. It would appear that men are slow to change and things really haven't changed much. I read the article and found it to be hilarious while containing a bit of truth, at least according to my 4 daughters.
Just for fun,I decided to write a list and point out a few of the faults that we men find in the ladies and sent it to Katie and Michelle. They enjoyed the humor and truths in my hints as much as I did in their's, at least according to their reply. ( owww,ouch, hmmm, wonder if they have a vodoo doll?)
Why anyone would complain about what was written is beyond me. If folks would read these article with a bit of an open mind and allow a bit of humor to escape their stoney interiors and exteriors they would certainly enjoy life a great deal more.
My advise to the young ladies was to keep up the humor, sprinkle it with some truths and teach us all to laugh a bit more.
I suppose it doesn't matter how old one is. Being open to laughter,even at one's own self is what really matters.
Posted on June 21, 2006 8:22 AM
You’ve heard from a man in his 6th decade, now hear from a female: I laughed myself silly while reading the article. Laughter is a good thing people; you all should try it. As for truth: The male of the species certainly doesn’t change. Two husbands, a son and a few other “encounters” over the two single and somewhat available periods encompassing 40 years and nothing about men’s behavior and choices has changed. And don’t we females from 6 to 60 just love having the Darlings around. Hair legs and backs, smelly feet, pot gut hanging over the waistband of their briefs and poor tippers just doesn’t seem to keep us from wanting to bring one home and make him our favorite pet.
Posted on June 21, 2006 9:42 AM