News-Record.com

One thing I'm curious about these days is the future of wire news in the paper.

If your mission is local news, do you foresee the day when you would run almost no wire news at all? No stories about the Iraq war unless a local person was involved? I know that even when people have already seen the news, they complain when the paper doesn't run a story that they care about. Running the story wouldn't get them to buy the paper, because they've already seen it, but not running the story drives them away.

Does it make sense for the paper to try to compete with the Web for readers who already like the Web, or should the paper be as traditional as possible for readers who want their news in the traditional way? Even though it's the most expensive way to reach a smaller and smaller group?

I like your list John sounds good to me....

about the first comment....

I wonder about that as well, I would love to see less of a focus on AP stuff and more locally written content.
That is why John when you mentioned a while back about not seeing the importance of having a local person review movies, I really disagreed with you. I think someone locally reviewing all sorts of things "about town" would really add alot!

I like your idea of ditching the boro' and adding tech reviews and things like that!
I would love to see more things reviewed restaurants, video game systems, local activity's, (children's museum, central library, Center City Park, Museums, Hoppers Stadium), that kind of focus on the "things that matter to me" would hook me even more....

Brian, I don't foresee a time when we will be entirely local. One thing we're trying to do now is when we do run wire, at least on the front page, to find something that looks ahead or is a different angle than the spot news look.

But you raise a great question that we're beginning to debate: What is the target audience? I don't know the outcome of that one, although I'm not ready to give up on that elusive 18-30-year-old yet.

Nick, on the movie reviewer issue, I don't disagree with you when you put it the way you did. But having a local movie reviewer who primarily reviews movies is a luxury, I think. Our experience is that most readers do not read bylines so, unless the reviewer were bringing a uniquely local voice and perspective to the review and it was captured in his/her words, I don't think readers would know the difference.

But having someone one who reviews stuff about town? That's an interesting idea. I like it. Thanks for the idea.

Yes you even refined the idea in a better way than I did, if you found someone with the right ability to display a unique sensibility that was appealing to the "everyman" he or she could really be a jack of all trades at reviewing multiple pop culture and local interest items, maybe even a simple Q & A tech section…(If I had a dollar for every time someone asked for help for what kind of computer they should buy!)

I get what you are saying about the movie reviewer; however I think that is taken care of if you find the type of person I mentioned above. Plus with movie reviews (in my personal opinion) it takes time to build a relationship with the audience. So that they start to see the types of things you like and dislike and try to figure out how similar your tastes are, if you can be objective, so on and so forth. I know for me if Siskel and Roeper have given it two thumbs up I’m more likely to give it a try. Plus would it be an exciting challenge for you as an Editor to try and put the right person out there that might be able to build a truly unique audience over time….?

Even though I realize in the short term it may be a budgetary strain my guess is that long term it could really pay huge dividends, and maybe help you to hook more of that younger audience that I’m sure you are always looking to bring into readership.

John,

It's not likely that you will get much participation on many of your blogs from new participants because you have a "gang" that hangs out online that attacks different thoughts or views. A good example is the Letter to the Editor blog. You've got six or seven that hang out there and dominate the site. They are one-trick ponies in their thoughts, with little to no variance. And, if you present a different line of thinking, they launch personal attacks and usually use vile language. You know who they are. You've received complaints before, but you've done nothing to keep it civil or constructive. I have ceased reading and posting there, as many people that I know, because of the environment that is alllowed to exist. I find many of the other local blogs to be a much more pleasant experience. You can make Christmas wishes, but they represent little more than hope.

Stormy, perhaps you could set the right example at The Chalkboard, which gets pretty abusive, too. :)

We've resisted exercising a heavier hand on the blog comments because we're hopeful...hopeful that people's better interests will kick in. And because we're soon going to move the blogs to a different publishing platform that will require a stricter registration process. We hope we can winnow out some of the personal attackers that way. Plus, we'll have legitimate e-mail addresses so that we can communicate with them directly.

Often, too, Christmas wish lists are little more than hope.

John,

You already have the email addresses of peoplke that post on the LTE; registration is required there, so you know who the people are.

Yes, the Chalkboard got real abusive this week. Ask E.C. Huey about being called a racial slur. The other posters had to request the monitors to remove it. And, that was no joke. :-)

Yes, the LTE can get to be a mess. It's a bit different from the other blogs because the other blogs have a clear host; the letters don't. Our new registration system is going to be a bit tougher to get around than the one on the letters.

But again, this is a wish list. Perhaps I should have added that I need a person to monitor the behavior of commenters.

Mr. Robinson, if you monitor blogger's "behavior" you will be soundly thrashed for "censoring" their comments. You will be accused of squelching those with a different political view than that of the N&R, whether it's an accurate accusation or not. Prepare for a war if you do that.
Why don't you just ban anyone that disagrees with you like Lex does on The Lex Files??

So what else is new, jaycee?

Prepare for war? Please.

Stromy is calling for civil discussion. That's what I want to. It hardly seems unreasonable. Right now, I've not banned anyone and the conversation gets pretty intense and uncivil.

That said, I'm not averse to banning anyone who violates our terms of agreement. Censorship? There are many other places people can go and carry on whatever conversations they like.

Disagreeing with Lex Alexander or proving him wrong must violate the terms of agreement you speak of, John. Beyond banning commenters, he also selectively edits posts and deletes comments based on their substance when they contradict him. He also has a pretty nasty attitude that invites a nasty attitude response.

As far as blogs in general, I actually find multimedia content distracting and time consuming. I think quality writing is a much better area to focus on.

Samuel, if you'd like to detail your complaints with specific examples, shoot me an e-mail. Lex has addressed why he has cut off comments on posts on his blog. From my perspective, he's well within his rights to do that.

John, the minor expletive used on his site is nothing but pretense. Lex has said elsewhere that he basically doesn't believe he should be subject to abuse by certain people. I agree with that except that his definition of abuse is actually just criticism of him and correcting the record when he's wrong and refuting his arguments.

Have you even questioned why people are only saying this about Lex? Surely, you and I have had a number of pronounced disagreements, but I don't accuse you of underhanded techniques and censorship. We agree to disagree fairly amicably. Same thing with Allen Johnson, and I have no problems on Doug Clark's blog.

The fact that a number of people are complaining about Lex and Lex alone is a good indication that there is fire with that smoke.

Sorry, I should have used my real name in that last post for the uninitiated instead of using "The CA".

I believe the discussion on his site has gone beyond simple disagreement. I'm also comfortable with Lex setting the bar where he's set it. He is the blog host.

Finally, I'm familiar with the tyranny of the crowds. I'm not sure the people concerned about Lex is a crowd, but I do know that the number of people who complain doesn't necessarily indicate that there is fire.

I'd like to see more local content in local newspapers. More indepth coverage of, say, state senators and representatives and what they are doing -- or not doing -- in NC.

There should be more stories about Eminent Domain, for instance, and the bill sponsored by several conservatives such as State Senator Fred Smith to protect private property rights. Stories about corporate welfare. Stories about what's really going on in our education system.

John, perhaps you should read the list of comments I made on Lex's blog that I posted after he banned me. Even people who don't normally agree with me on anything have stated that based on my actual comments made on Lex blog, they didn't believe a ban by Lex was warranted.

You may suprised to know that the first person I ever heard make the same criticisms of Lex that I have made is a liberal, prominent lawyer who claims he was a victim of Lex's censorship and selective editing of his comments when he pointed out where Lex was wrong on a legal issue.

Mr. Robinson, why don't you check the list of people banned by Lex and decide if they're conservatives or liberals. I think that should tell you something about who Lex doesn't want to hear from. As I recall, I was banned by Lex after replying to him in a manner not nearly as caustic and biting as comments by Sam and others in the same thread.

I am not sure if you, jaycee and Samuel, are just informing me or asking me to do something.

As you see this in political terms, I will, too. Consider our blog hosts as states. Consider me a conservative who believes in state's rights. We have laws: a term of agreement for commenters. The hosts of are blog are the enforcement officers. They are expected to be patient, tolerant and reasonable. But they are permitted to monitor and moderate comments.

As a conservative federal government, I am reluctant to swing in and moderate comments for any of the bloggers, short of egregious oversights and misbehavior on their part. I understand you feel some injustice. I'd suggest you take that up with Lex. He's not difficult to get ahold of.

Lex is a N&R employee and everything he does reflects on you and the newspaper. He's an employee and subject to your supervision. That's nothing like the "states vs. Federal government" example you gave.
Lex is not patient, tolerant, or reasonable with bloggers. I feel he has psychological problems when it comes to self-esteem and control issues. I've never met him, but I imagine he's short in stature. These problems are reflected in the way he treats and talks to people. His attitude is well known among conservative blog contributors; many have been abused, cursed, belittled, sneered at, and banned by Lex.
Everything Lex does reflects on the News & Record, whether you want it to or not.

Yes, jaycee, and what you should read into my statement is that Lex has done nothing on this issue that shames me. I hear that you feel differently. I'll let your personal -- and what I would deem abusive -- comment about him make the case.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Sorry, posted the above before I finished.
So, Mr. Robinson, you're willing to let the actions of Lex define the News & Record?
Should readers look at Lex's actions as reflective of the attitude and position of the N&R on political issues?
If a reader only looks at Lex's blog are you comfortable with the impression the reader will get of your newspaper?
I don't think you should feel "shame" for Lex's rants. He does what he does. But shouldn't you look at the posted work of one of your employees and representatives and ask yourself if it's befitting your newspaper and community reputation?

Lex's blog is what it is and I think visitors there know it and realize it. There's no reason for them to think his blog "defines" the News & Record. He often states that he does not speak for us. I don't think you believe it defines the paper.

I'd like to second what jaycee has said here. I used to comment on Lex's posts, and he banned me for the travesty of ... disagreeing with him. That, or asking for proof of his various assertions. The gall of me, I know.

Sure, it's his blog and he can do what he wishes, but I'd ask -- why in the hell even have comments? So that people can say how "great" he is? Enabling comments for that sole purpose is just absolutely laughable, and shows what kind of "person" Lex really is. FWIW, I never used profanity and never abused comments in any way. I was banned precisely for the reasons noted above: disagreeing with Lex and asking for proof.

Ya'd think someone at a newspaper would encourage these things!