News-Record.com

I swore this blog off some time back, but let me ask you a question, John.

Where local newspapers and ads are concerned, what do you think about the publisher of Asheboro's Courier Tribune (David Renfro) appearing in full page (i.e. fairly expensive) ads for Randolph Hospital in his own newspaper?

Doesn't that cross the line of objectivity and ethics? Doesn't it show, beyond any shadow of any doubt, a blatant bias in favor of a big advertiser?

I don't think the issue is where the N&R places its ads (and I don't think lay people care). I think it's whether or not you've sold your journalistic soul to run it.

You're right, Mary, that is the issue. Not. Didn't you get your own blog?

Does anyone beyond the most navel-gazing of journalists care in the slightest about a small ad appearing on the front page?

No.

I won't mind as long as it's not as annoying as the TV commercial. It's so aggravating I change the channel whenever it comes on.

Tough times call for tough decisions. Are you considering it?

It never bothered me as much as it does some other journalists. I understand the old if you give 'em an inch they'll take a mile argument.

But a strip ad across the bottom of A1, doesn't seem to hurt much at the places that are doing it. If it was going to go in the flag or on a rail it might bother me, but I think it can be done without much of a problem.

I worked at a paper where we had a strip on the bottom, and I found it much less bothersome than the sticky ads they would put above the fold that you had to pull off in order to read the paper. I can't tell you how many times a great photo gave little value on the rack when a bright yellow advertisement was stuck on top of it.

The actions of these highly regarded newspapers have not gone unnoticed here.

My first newspaper did the strip eons ago. I've learned not to even notice it when I go home.

I've seen both... papers with front page ads and those without. I can't remember which did or didn't have them.

In other words, it don't make me no nevermind... try it and gauge the response.

Bemused chuckle. Yes indeed. I did develop my own blog. Which John has not seen fit to link (not that I care so much anymore) - even though it often addresses some of these "local/backyard" journalistic issues.

The issue buried deep in John's question IS how far is a newspaper willing to go to pacify/satisfy/pander to its advertisers? Does the "economic health" of a newspaper outweigh its ethical responsibilities of OBJECTIVE oversight? If you advertise for someone on your front page (no matter how small the ad) . . . OR (as in the case I've raised) a "journalist" actually appears in an ad . . . and something happens that might put that advertiser in a less than favorable light in a news headline, do you print the story or do you ignore it, so as not disrupt the flow of advertising dollars? Does "economic health" trump ethical health?

Some journalists don't even see the navel anymore. They're looking for what's in the pocket.

Gosh, I sound like Carrie Bradshaw on Sex & the City . Will linking "sex" get this thread more Google hits? Ed Cone called John on that sort of thing just yesterday.

And again, I really don't think the issue is where the ad is (which is what John wants us to say). The bigger issue is what you're selling to do it.

I hesitated in responding to your question, Dr. Johnson, because I know it could evoke yet another criticism about how we aren't writing the story about your case that you wish. But you ask an important question that's worth an answer, even as I doubt you'll believe it.

The news pages don't cater to advertisers in story coverage or placement. Ask anyone who advertises. Ask our own ad reps. That said the newspaper company attempts to satisfy its customers so we place the advertisers on color pages in the paper and sell them unusually shaped ads, if they want to pay for them. If we place advertising on any section front, the advertiser will simply take a risk, if they are sensitive about news content. As is well-known in journalism, the advertiser buys the delivery system to customers it wants, not the content.

"(which is what John wants us to say)"? I've been around here long enough to know that if I want a specific response in the blogoshere, I might as well not blog about it. There are too many diverse voices out there presenting a variety of opinions. That's precisely why I asked.

One other thing: Ed "called me" on link whoring? Did you actually read my post about Girls Gone Wild?

"Ed "called me" on link whoring? Did you actually read my post about Girls Gone Wild?"

She obviously did not. In addition, I would really despise myself, as would others, if I were to be so cynical.

No. I didn't read it - until four seconds ago. As I said, I swore your blog off a while back (and I'm wondering why I bothered to jump back in this time).

So what you did in your blog post (if not the headline you were pondering) is called "link-whoring"? One learns something new every day.

David, if I am "cynical" about the journalists in this area, I am what John and his "local" colleagues made me. It's not just about me being out in the cold. A few years ago, I watched the N&R destroy a man with a bad story.

"As is well-known in journalism, the advertiser buys the delivery system to customers it wants, not the content." Let's say I do believe you, John . . . at least where the N&R is concerned. You still did not answer the question I posed: How, as a local journalist, do you explain away/excuse the publisher of the Courier Tribune appearing in an ad for Randolph Hospital - an insitution that he is supposed to be objectively covering (a hospital which, by the way, has been all over his newspaper all week long pumping up a new fund-raising campaign - press releases and fluff presented unchallenged as news)? Do you think the publisher's close relationship with the hospital brass might affect content? Might that relationship present a conflict of interest? Might it make him just a wee bit biased? Do you excuse what he did? Do you think it's ethical?

And if it is not excusable or ethical, doesn't the N&R have some responsibility (as "local" paper) to take up the slack of stories that may not have gotten a fair shake? And (by the way) I don't think local papers covering local stories is "dumbing it down". I just question the decision-making process and focus (as do others). Not that questioning the mighty N&R's editorial staff is going to get me anywhere. I've learned that very well.

The question you asked was not just about aesthetics. It was an ethical question. You're talking about giving up column space on your front page for ads. It's about giving up news for money. I've told you I don't really care about ads on the front page (within reason). I DO care that if you're not careful (and very honest with journalistic selves) you may be selling something more than ads.

I don't know anything about the situation you describe involving the publisher in Asheboro and have no dog in that fight.

No, you just sell newspapers to the dog owners there. I/we am/are supposed to believe that you don't read your local competitors.

Alas, you provided the just answer I've learned to expect from the N&R. All of the dumb discussions about "ethics" are for the politicians in Raleigh & Washington. There's nothing we need to talk about locally. Keep it light.

After all, business is business.

No reason to be "cynical" at all.

Mr. Robinson, I see no reason at all for your not putting advertising on the front page of your newspaper. In fact, it just may be a good idea since the advertising would be at least as interesting as the news coverage. Today's paper was a total disaster from the standpoint of journalism. A rehash of New Orleans with huge pictures when there are forest fires raging out West and flooding in the Northeast. And this is not even to consider that there is a war going on that just may be a turning point for the world. Like even the cartoon on the opinion page was lousy. Wasn't Anthony available?

But you know Sir, there is one redeeming thing about the N&R and that is the blogs. You have some fine journalists who can only show what they could be doing for the newspaper in their blogs. That is a real shame. And, that is your fault as Editor. Brenda Bowers

Yeah, you showed him, all right. He asks a legitimate question and you attack him. Do you realize how bitter and mean-spirited you sound?

Heavy sigh. Ben, if you are talking to me, yes, I do. But have YOU considered WHAT might have happened to make me think and say the things I do?

You might take as an example the very things I have pointed out here (and on my blog - although JR is "too busy" to update his blogroll) . . . things relevant to the "ethics" of journalism (something I have not seen or experienced much of in Asheboro - by either of the "dailies" that cover what is going on there).

By the way, I answered John's legitimate question - and asked him a related one. And the point remains (even if mine is one of the many voices in the community he doesn't really want to hear). We are talking about giving up column space for front-page worthy news to make more money.

Mr. Robinson completely lost credibility with me when he said he doesn't know what is going on in his journalistic backyard. Just call me a non-believer. Here's why: (1) The N&R still maintains an office (if not reporters) in Asheboro. And (2) I seem to recall that the N&R made journalistic "ethics" a very big issue for Jeffrey Sykes in Reidsville (another "lesser" competitor).

Oh, and then there's the other little thing: if John Robinson is a newspaper Editor worth his salt, it's his JOB to KNOW what's going on next door.

We "dogs" in Asheboro not only buy newspapers, we pay taxes. Right now the local hospital is asking the public for money. It's the newspapers' responsibility not to WHORE for the hospital, but to ask legitimate questions about how they have used taxpayer dollars in the past (and I'm not just talking about the last three years - the only thing Randolph Hospital wants to talk about). How "non-profits" do business and treat people "IS" important.

But obviously not to the N&R.

I believe that the primary reason the N&R has not pursued my story (true, definitely NOT dumb and "locally relevant") is because once-upon-a-time-in-a-personal-nightmare, Randolph Hospital sued me for "libel" (it was front-page news in both local "dailies").

Never mind that the claim was bogus . . . a despicable deflection/intimidation tactic that was quietly abandoned at settlement.

The newspaper's lawyers won't let JR/his cohorts touch this story now - even though I have black & white evidence of way overpaid "non-profit" hospital officials lying under Oath in their own "libel" lawsuit to save a buck (for future capital investments).

The unfortunate truth is that all it took to destroy my dream of a hometown practice was to make the accusation.

So put youself in my shoes and PLEASE don't tell me that I have no reason/"right" to be cynical, skeptical or "bitter" as I pose legitimate questions to JR about his paper's journalistic practices (including ignoring what's going on right under his nose). Like BB, I do credit the N&R for having staff blogs. But has it really changed the status quo of what is reported/covered? I don't think so.

I think ethics matters - in politics, in business, in medicine. I'd like to see it matter more in "local" journalism.

By all means, sell the ads if it floats the boat.