Gay scare on A1
Wednesday update: I should have mentioned that Lorraine explains why she was interested in the story in our podcast (part 2). "This was not a Google story."
Interesting conversation at Ed's place about why we published Lorraine Ahearn's story on the 1957 roundup of men accused of crimes against nature on the front page Sunday. Sorry I'm late to it; I was unaware the conversation was going on until I saw Hoggard last night and he asked why I hadn't weighed in.
Front page stories are debated every day inside our place as well as by our readers. So this discussion isn't unfamiliar. In a moment, I'll describe the factors that go into our decisions about the front page.
But the first question that must be addressed is whether this is even a legitimate story. As Samuel Spagnola notes, it happened 50 years ago.
When we consider pursuing a story, we ask ourselves several initial questions, among them: Is it interesting? Is this something that we think the community should know? Can we get the story? When Lorraine's story was decribed to me, my reaction was, "Say what? I've never heard of this before. Tell me more." That was pretty much the typical reaction among editors here. The chase was on, and in this case, there was some urgency to get it done: people with a direct connection to the arrests and trials are dying.
Once we establish the story is worth pursuing -- and it is reported and written -- then we talk about where to publish it.
We want our front page to be local, serious, exclusive, engaging, accessible and timely. From that list, we break it down further, based on readership drivers from The Readership Institute and our own gut. We want readers to say, among other things, that the story:
* Connects me with our community
* Give me something to talk about
* Looks out for my personal and civic interests
* Makes me smarter
* Delivers surprise and humor
Our gut reaction was that people -- even those who have lived here their entire lives -- either didn't know about the "gay scare" or had long forgotten about it. So, we've told them something that they didn't know, that they would be interested in knowing and that is worth talking and thinking about. (Yes, maybe some aren't interested, but that is true with every story we publish.) And I suspect it made some people uncomfortable, too. Much of what we write does that.
We often revisit history on the front pages, including stories about the Sit-ins, the Fultz quads, virtually every Jim Schlosser column on Mondays. Even Bitter Blood was serialized on our pages well after the actual murders took place.
Finally, by my evaluation, it was the best story we had in the paper that day. It wasn't the most important, but it delivered the biggest punch about a serious topic involving people in this community. Well worth A1.
An agenda to it? Nah. All that stuff about hanging with the bigtime journalists in New York City is silly. Besides, from what I read, it's not all that healthy professionally, either.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John, I never said the story wasn't interesting. I only questioned why it was front page "news". I did not bring up the issue of an agenda- it was posed to me by someone on Ed's blog. So I responded. I still believe there are a lot of liberal self-hating southerners out there...
Posted on September 19, 2006 3:24 PM
Like Howell Raines, do you mean?
A good story, to be sure, but the N&R has fairly self-consciously taken it upon itself to be the guardians of Greensboro's collective memory, not just its current news.
I would have run the story, but I fear it will eventually rank alongside the Klan/CWP shootings as an event of relatively minor historical significance endlessly rehearsed to remind Guiltsboro of its sordid past. Indeed, a strong case can be made that it's of more historical significance than the Klan shootings, which receive annual coverage per stated editorial policy.
Posted on September 19, 2006 4:07 PM
Samuel, I hear you on all that. I wasn't trying to say that you raised all the questions I attempted to answer. Obviously, other commenters brought out other issues. I only meant to say that you raised what I thought was a good question about the age of the incidents.
Well, then again, you did bring that up about the New York City balls. I had to take a crack at that one.
Brian, yes, we believe in the importance of history. I don't know that the "gay scare" will be historically significant -- in fact, I doubt it will be, given that it hasn't been. But it's interesting and worth knowing.
Posted on September 19, 2006 5:00 PM
You need better reporters if this is the best you had for front page Sunday.
Posted on September 19, 2006 8:00 PM
Actually, as anyone who cares to click over to the comment thread at my blog can see, Sam was the first to raise the issue of an agenda.
His is the second comment in the thread. The first comment lauds the piece. Sam then asks, "What was the purpose of this story?"
To be accurate, he was not the first person to use the word "agenda," but he did raise the question of a hidden purpose.
Posted on September 19, 2006 8:04 PM
Ed once again takes what I said and turns it into something else. Asking "what was the purpose of this story?" is not the same as declaring a hidden agenda. Nice try, Ed.
David Hoggard first brought up the question as to whether I thought there was a hidden agenda behind the story. I answered him with a response that John Robinson has seen before- essentially that this was more politically correct apologetic journalism designed to evoke guilt so liberals can feel better about themselves and be considered tolerant and enlightened despite their southern roots by their more influential peers in the northeast.
You don't have to agree with that, but I was asked, and I answered. It can be a nice history lesson and serve an agenda at the same time. I believe it was both.
Posted on September 20, 2006 12:12 PM