News-Record.com

Rex Hammock wrote a post last week explaining why he blogged. It seemed a good idea, despite it being April Fool's Day, to do the same thing.

I started this back in '04 after reading and learning from Ed Cone and Lex Alexander. I read the discussion going on about the newspaper and felt I needed to join in. I was intrigued by the civic conversation occurring outside the traditional media sources. Sometimes raw, often intelligent, mostly genuine, it was compelling and had the feel of something radically important. The newspaper needed to be there. My theme would be and is journalism.

* As online publishing allows us to expand the journalism we do, this blog permits me to expand the ways I can to talk with and listen to readers.It dramatically extends the level of transparency not only because I can publish anytime but also because the standard is much higher. When you can ask me anything in this wide open space, I feel the obligation to answer. (Not that you always like the answer.) In addition, being active online compels me to read and watch what others are doing. It motivates me to keep up, to learn and to experiment.

* The interactivity with others online is energizing and enervating at the same time. Energizing because so many of the discussions occur among people who care and who move the ball forward. Enervating when the dialogue is mean-spirited and full of insinuation. Still, I've learned from the observations and adjusted my work and the paper's accordingly.

* Leaders communicate in a variety of ways. Sometimes I'm writing to the newspaper staff; got to get the message across however I can. And sometimes leading by example is the best way to get the message across that the world has changed. I also can't resist addressing some of the tragically uninformed opinions tossed out by some of the blowhards in this business.I try not to do it often -- it's not constructive -- but sometimes tough love is just what's called for.

* It's truly fun. I've met smart people from all over the country. I've shared some laughs with smart bloggers in Greensboro. I've gotten to supplement my newspaper column with a bit of personality here. (I said a bit.) And rather than getting into trouble on the mean streets of downtown Greensboro, I'm here at 5:15 p.m.

This is all to say, Why doesn't every editor have a blog?

An academic study, as reported by CJR Daily:

Published in the winter 2007 volume of Journalism History, "Depression, Drink and Dissipation" finds that almost half of the best people to ever push a noun against a verb in newsprint were debilitated by depression, serious anxiety, or bipolar disorder; over a third were titanic drunks, pill-poppers, or opium-addicts; nearly a third were serial philanderers, and a sizable bunch were misogynists, man-eaters, or violent bullies.

And if that's not enough:

Psychologists have shown that neurotics can make good journalists when they project their inner doubts and dissatisfactions onto the world. This is the energy behind investigative reporting and the source of journalism's vaunted distrust of power, the argument goes.

In speaking with a Reuters reporter, Tom Rosenstiel, the highly respected head of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said: "I think the challenge for the newspaper industry is that it's trying to persuade the advertising community that it's not a dying industry, but it's an emerging one making the transition to a new platform. To be an emerging industry, that suggests that you have some of the hallmarks of Silicon Valley. You don't wear a tie anymore and you wear blue jeans and turtlenecks, and maybe a two-day beard."

He's thinking Steve Jobs. Not me. I'm working on replacing that old media mug at the top of the page with this.

The saying "pearls before swine" comes from Matthew 7:6* and refers to items of quality offered to those who aren't cultured enough to appreciate them.

It also refers to our newest comic strip -- Jan. 1, 2007 -- Pearls Before Swine.

I heard from a reader today who didn't like Friday's strip. In case you missed it, it's about Britney and rehab and underwear. I find it sad that we cannot be "funny" these days without being rude, crude or lewd. This new comic strip is a detriment to the newspaper in my opinion.

Britney causes that reaction in me, too. (Duh-dum.)

Humor is individual. I don't know anyone who likes every comic we run. We try to have a variety of styles, tastes and characters so that some strips will appeal to you. (I'm convinced that the new ones are always met with a level of derision simply because they are new.) And we're keeping it.

Longtime readers know that comics complaints are a common topic here. My second ever post was about them.

* "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet."

I don't often feature N&R employees that don't work in news. But in big a way, David Reno works in news. Circulation director is just his title. David has been a fierce advocate for content, working with us to put together the best newspaper we can. Sadly for us, he is leaving the paper after 17 years to become production director of our larger sister paper, The Virginian-Pilot. (It's happy for him; it's the job he's always wanted. But this is about me, not him.:))

I'll miss Dave, not only because we've worked together to keep readership up, but because he's such a provocative, innovative thinker. He's a master of turning ideas on their heads and coming up with a different, better possibility.

Fortunately for us, Dave's leaving us in good hands. His successor is Regina Howard-Glaspie, who came to us last October from Northwestern University where she was director of marketing and sales at Media Management Center. The Readership Institute, which has done much of the research we've used to improve the paper, is an arm of the Media Management Center. (She's also an N.C. native.)

Many of the journalists at the N&R read this blog, for which I'm grateful. Of course, it also means some don't. That's OK. I have a narrowly focused niche here. (And the ones with a successful future read it. :))

I started thinking about this as I've thought about ways to get more people to read the paper. The paper is directed at a mass audience (although it is getting narrower). The blog is directed to people interested in journalism and, specifically, the News & Record. If people in our newsroom don't read this blog, how can I expect to grow the newspaper and news site audience? So I asked around. The answers were predictable: Not enough time and not a natural habit to come here.

And I'd add a third that is common to newspaper readers: the content isn't good enough. If it were, readers would find the time. That's my personal challenge. I know that it's impossible to get 100 percent of a potential audience because some people aren't interested, others just don't read and still others get the information other ways. Still, I'm studying these 101 ways to make your blog sizzle!

Likewise, making the content of the paper more compelling for those folks inclined to read papers but do so infrequently is our professional challenge. I'm thinking it is through more networked community journalism, more service journalism, better storytelling and more news. With a more robust, redesigned Web site -- which we're working on now -- these all apply to print and online.

Mark Evans says that most newspaper blogs aren't very good because the writers are forced into it. Those, he says, lack passion and enthusiasm. He's right about that. The first thing I learned as we entered the blogosphere in 2004 is that you can't force it. (No. 10 here.)

But if his evaluation of what makes a good blog is right, I think his conclusion that good newspaper blogs are rare is wrong.

Anyway, as we prepare to open up new blogs, we're evaluating what we have. Help us. Which of our blogs work and which don't?

Jerry S. Weston suggests in a letter to the editor today that we cut Carr some slack in our coverage because he was one of our own.

For the record, we have written six stories about him, all of which we've published on the local front. That's more than we've written about Sidney Lowe II, although, in fairness, most of the stories about Lowe ran on A1 and he entered the new cycle about two weeks later than Carr.

I don't know Carr and I doubt if many of N&R folk do. Rather than doing him favors, we've written more about the man's legal troubles because he's sort of a local celebrity. I think you could make a case that we have written too much about Carr. And, personally, it seems to me that the local broadcast media has been all over Carr's case.

The absence of reporters thrusting microphones and pad and pencil into Carr's face says much about his disappearance from public view and the local media's aversion to tabloid journalism.

That's not good. While disabling comments on past entries, I inadvertently deleted August 2006. Gone. Everything: posts and comments. I blame the perils of multitasking, which is what I was doing when I clicked on delete rather than rebuild.

Our IT folks can restore them, and, out of the kindness of their hearts, have agreed to do so. But because they have real work to do on the main site first, fixing my screwup is down their priority list right under No. 213: "Buy winning lottery ticket; quit job," which is where it ought to be.

As many of you will surely note, I don't recall that I said much during August. It was hot. Everyone was on vacation. Life's short.

Because she is no longer considered a victim of a sex crime, we are naming the accuser in the Duke lacrosse not-a-rape case. We have not identified Crystal Gail Mangum by name in the paper before, although her identity was easily found on Web sites.

We did not staff the Attorney General Roy Cooper's news conference today -- why would we since dozens of reporters were there for us? -- so I link to the best coverage I could find: The N&O's. And editor Melanie Sill's explanation for publicly naming her, reasoning I agree with.

Ted Vaden at the N&O takes the position that their site should require commenters to identify themselves with their real names. I'm assuming, too, that he thinks the paper should verify their identities before their comments are posted. Ted worries about the degradation of the paper's brand.

The N&O should foster a higher plane of discourse in this supposedly brainy community by requiring accountability of people who use our sites. The paper does so for letters to the editor and still is able to publish (because of space constraints) fewer than a third of the 12,000 letters it receives annually.

Maybe the quantity of comments would go down. But I hope the quality of discussion would go up, which is what a newspaper is about.

Ted was one of my bosses when I was at the N&O so it is with delight that I can say he is wrong. He is trying to impose a newspaper mentality onto the Web. Not as automatically a bad idea as many think, but one that on this topic severely limits the opportunities.

I agree that we all want a civil discussion that fosters a sense of community. I believe wholeheartedly that people learn through intelligent discussion; I know I do. The Web enables individuals to express themselves in all manner of ways. As so many have said, the power and control moves from we publishers to you publishers.

We published this photo by Nelson Kepley as the centerpiece on our local front yesterday. Someone asked how we shot it. Here's Nelson's take:

"We decided to follow up on a story by Lorraine Ahearn on Feb. 18 about a pair of bald eagles that nested in a pine tree on Lake Brandt. After positioning a tripod mounted lens and camera on the bank of the lake across the water from the nest, I noticed some movement on the surface of the nest that appeared to be the brown wing of a bird extending and retracting.

"Sixty to 90 minutes later an adult bald eagle swooped in, landing on a tree branch to the right of the nest. The bird swiveled his head from side to side and took long looks at the nest. Soon the brown heads of the eaglets began poking higher and higher. They looked around, bending their heads toward their feet. One then extended its wings into the air and I knew at that point I had the best moment. I couldn't overcome all of the technical hurdles of capturing this image and got a grainy photograph that we published.

"Two 2X teleconverters where sandwiched between a Canon EOS 1D Mark II camera body and a 400mm lens yielding the functional equivalent of a 2080mm lens. It’s an unconventional, very crude and undesirable combination of glass but, in a desperate effort to reach out close enough to photograph the birds, it was necessary. The result was a wonderful moment. Rob Brown, director of photography, decided the insight into these beautiful birds’ lives outweighed the technical issues and recommended it for publication."

I don't know diddly about technical issues, but I think it worked exceptionally well.

Nelson's photo from Lorraine's earlier column is here.

Chris Coletta, a reporter on the Rock Creek Record, which we publish mainly in eastern Guilford County, is leaving us for a position with the Triangle Business Journal.

I like to say that Chris's claim to fame was catching the tail of the Daughtry comet as took off, but I'm only joking. He did a great job writing about happenings in Gibsonville, Elon, McLeansville, Whitsett and Sedalia.

You might think that the big news story of the day yesterday -- Duke lacrosse charges dropped -- would drive high online traffic. And that story, coupled especially with the mayor's decision not to run for re-election, did. The mayor story actually got more views. (They both had video, too!)

But we got more traffic by 10 a.m. today on these two traffic accidents than we did all day on the Duke and Holliday stories.

Conclusions? Duke was all over the Web; people didn't need to come here? They already knew what the headline in the Duke case and didn't care to read deeper. The big newspaper stories aren't always the big Web stories? Mayor who? We love us a wreck story and if someone is dragged down the street, so much the better? Web traffic is a magical, serendipitous thing and you go nuts trying to figure out a one-day swing? All of the above?

From our online dude Michael Grossman:

Of the computers that accessed News-Record.com from Jan.1-March 31:
* 69 percent were in North Carolina
* 53 percent were in Guilford, Rockingham, Alamance, Davidson, Randolph or Forsyth counties

Given that 95% of our newspaper circulation occurs in those six counties, we are reaching a significantly different group of people online. Well, duh. This affirms that we have abundant opportunities to extend our journalism online and reach new people.

When we compare it with the daily traffic numbers of individual stories, we also see that there is also a place for both shovelware and new Web-directed content. Duh, No. 2.

It's hard for me to believe that there is anyone still out there who thinks that moving newspaper content online is enough, but then I say hello to professor Mindy McAdams, an outstanding blogger: I was looking at a few really hideous Web sites yesterday -- sites that have no content on them other than shovelware, and two-thirds of the page is plastered with mismatched blinking advertisements that seem designed to send any sensible person rushing to click the Close button. It's just hard to imagine that anyone looks at such a site -- and when I try to guess what the goals for the site are, I have to conclude that it's purely for advertisers.

Neither technological ignorance nor simple neglect nor greed, as Mindy suggests, works anymore. Our data should convince every editor and publisher still in doubt that we ignore the opportunities to expand journalism and build community at our own peril.

I spent much of last week listening to and talking with readers. Well, I spend much of every week doing that, but even more so last week, and I will do it again this week and next week as part of some research we're doing.

They said good things about the paper, but I'm going to talk about their wants here. So far, the only consistency has been that people want more: more sports, more local, national and world news, more commentary, more business coverage, more good news, etc. They don't agree on what they want within that "more." Some want more high school sports; others don't care about the teenagers, they want more pro sports, and it doesn't matter if the team is here or in Toronto.

"The front page is for news of the world, not some feature story about someone from Greensboro," one woman told me. Others said that the front page was too angry, with nothing but bad news from around the world. "Can't you find something good to write about?" A couple wanted more syndicated columnists and fewer local ones. One person wanted just the opposite.

These are 7-day subscribers, the loyal folks we depend upon to support and nourish the business. And as I speak with them, I think about our purposeful moves to emphasize local and downplay commodity news, that content that is omnipresent and easily accessible elsewhere. This is content these readers are telling me they want. When we eliminate it, we annoy them. "Yes, I know that I can get that on the computer," one man told me. "I don't want to get it on the computer. I pay you to give it to me in my paper, they way I always have."

I didn't have -- and still don't -- have a good response to that.

Not to scare anyone off, but tomorrow Maria Johnson takes a look at BTBP and his streetplane. With the wind gusts today, he might just take off.

Tom Lassiter's video of Billy Jones and the plane here.

Tuesday update: Story here.

The 5th comment of 373 comments on the first shooting story at the Planet Blacksburg site is by someone named AJ in JAX: "Chalk up another victory for 'gun free zones.' When will governments realize that stripping abiding gun carrying citizens' ability to carry only makes them targets?"

And the argument over gun rights continues for another hundred or so comments, complete with name-calling and pleas for civility.

I thought of that as I pondered Sue's thoughtful, plaintive post yesterday about the state of the local blogging community. (I wanted to respond yesterday but the events of the day waylaid me.) As the horror unfolded in Blacksburg, the comment thread essentially took two tracks with one group arguing angrily over gun rights and another exchanging information and sympathy, each ignoring the other. We've been here before.

Each blog is a community with rules set by the host. Some are wide open, letting everyone come and play as they like. Others have fences and rules with someone watching the gate. Takes all kinds. Like the real world, as the blogging community grows, some people with different modes of behavior are bound to come and act out. Like the real world, there are some neighborhoods I don't wander because they hold little appeal or I don't feel safe.

We keep our blogs pretty open -- although some of those banned or ignored would object to that characterization. Our rules are pretty loose, too. No personal attacks. No profanity. But silliness, unfair insinuations and irrelevance are tolerated. So are stupidity, raised voices and a bit of name-calling, particularly if you are a public persona. As a newspaper, we believe that openness to ideas and debate, even that which is considered silly, irrelevant and loud, is part of our obligation. Does it scare more constructive commenters away? Probably. But I think community will grow and prosper if the host keeps working at it, and the good will eventually outnumber the bad.

Could be wrong, but I'm not ready to quit it yet.

For me, comments are transparent. Reasonable readers can quickly grasp who is going off half-cocked and who is trying to have an open-minded debate. On this blog, I've learned who to engage with and who to ignore. Those I ignore seem to know I ignore them. Why they keep coming back is a mystery to me -- I would think they have better uses for their time -- but I don't spend much time thinking about it.

It does seem as if the blogging community here has split into factions, with all the predictable behaviors that factions have, confrontation being one. To me, that's a natural growth cycle. It will right itself and evolve with work and the kinds of discussions Sue has started.

Of all the interesting media events that I saw yesterday -- watching the news conferences of the police chief and the university president was fascinating to me -- the most surreal was on "Inside Edition."

Following NBC Nightly News, which featured some compelling coverage with anchor Brian Williams on campus, Inside Edition led with a few minutes on the Tech rampage, then without any break, flowed seamlessly into a story about the latest Britney Spears rant.

Update: By the way, reporter Amy Dominello is filing live reports on local students from Blacksburg throughout the day.

Update II: In the strange bedfellows department, Inside Edition and The NY Times have sponsored Google keyword searches for "Virginia shooting," AdAge reports.

Some newspaper designers are second-guessing yesterday's front page treatment of the Virginia Tech massacre. Writes Jeremy Gilbert, design director at the Poynter Institute:

When you look at many of Tuesday's front pages, you'll notice that some of the same papers who did such a good job getting the stories online Monday failed to deliver a print edition building on what they had already published.

Newspapers are well suited to provide analysis and context. When events take place off the cycle of the printed publication, newspaper journalists get an opportunity to move the story forward.

In planning for Tuesday's paper, we talked about that very thing. The story was moving, shifting and evolving throughout the day and evening. One shooter or two? Was this caused by a domestic dispute or no? Despite wall-to-wall television coverage, it was hard to keep up with what happened when and how.

Our determination was that readers needed a single story that told clearly what happened and what students, witnesses and administrators said. They also needed a single narrative told by those who lived through it. And, because there are many local connections to Virginia Tech, they needed to know about the safety and thoughts of students from the Triad.

We went large with the photo we did because it was a strong image that provided a mopment in time that told of some of the action and violence of the day. We had photos from the memorial service we could have used as the main art -- we used a smaller photo --but they didn't really fit the overall mood of the coverage. We knew we would have plenty of photos of grieving students for today. The photos we had were on television, but TV moved through them quickly. They were online, too, as was virtually everything. We did not go with this photo because it was on our site most of the day and I saw it more often than any other on TV.

In fact, we wanted the newspaper to complement online, and online to complement the newspaper. (We had a prominent promo on the front directing readers to audio, video and the latest news online.)

Were we thinking of history rather than of readers? We were thinking of both. We wanted to help readers looking for perspective and narrative, as well as serve those who are looking for tomorrow's story.

Mel sent me this link to Daughtry's new video that was partly filmed in Greensboro last month. You'll recognize the scenes and maybe some of the people.

I am disappointed that the News & Record joins NBC in glorifying the shooter of the VA Tech massacre. It is his large photo on the front page, while inside are the tiny photos of the victims. This presentation only helps promote future and copycat killings.

*********************************

This morning, still stunned and depressed by the events at Virginia Tech, I opened my newspaper to see a half page photo of the perpetrator, glorified on a large tv in his chosen paramilitary persona. What poor editorial judgment. I can only imagine what people who may have lost someone at Virginia Tech felt when they saw the murderer tricked out like Rambo, seeing the same horrifying image that was probably the last thing their loved one saw. You have given him what he wanted -- fame, front page glory, painting him exactly as he wanted all the media to. What an incredibly insensitive choice. Why not print a huge photo of Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu who gave his life protecting his students rather than playing to the sick fantasies of his killer? I am appalled at the way you allowed the killer to manipulate you.

******************************

Those pretty much sum up the sentiments of a half-dozen readers who called or wrote this morning. I doubt we're the only newspaper that heard from readers on this topic. I know we're not the only media organization.

I hear their plea. Sometimes the news isn't remotely pretty. Sometimes every good intention cannot be satisfied. But the video was news; it was the biggest news in the biggest news story of the day. The remaining question in this entire tragedy is why he did it. The video doesn't fully answer that, but it comes close by portraying Cho as the armed and dangerous maniac he was.

It is true that we did not have to run his photo -- it wasn't half a page, but rather a 3-inch-by-4-inch photo of him on television. It was taken in a Blacksburg restaurant where patrons were watching the coverage on NBC Nightly News. That by itself tells a story. Normally, we try to marry the main photo with the main story. Not picturing Cho or using a photo of one or more victims would not only have been jarring, but it would not have portrayed the true news story of the day. Then again, had one of the victims or their family members lived in the Triad, we may have decided differently, but it's hard to say.

Other front pages from around the nation and world here.

On Friday, I got several complaints about our front page story on the anti-war demonstration to be held today. They think our conservative inclinations have affected our news judgment. Go figure.

I think that your paper could have done a better job of describing "The World Can't Wait" than simply saying they have ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party. I believe that many people will read that sentence and feel that it is a "smear job" aimed, along with the accompanying threat of violent "biker" counter protests, at lessening the turnout at the peace rally.

Another wrote: So, how many of your advertisers called and said the paper better put the word out about the Eagles group gathering or they'd yank their ads? It's the only thing I can think compelled your staff to waste so much ink on a story that is clearly doing its best to make certain the anti-war protest doesn't get too much "positive" advanced press. Anti-war protests ALWAYS get counter demonstrators. There's no need for your conservative buddies on the paper to put out the word for them to show up.

In further conversation with that writer, she told me she was being sarcastic with the advertiser crack. (No advertiser called, either.) Truth is, I wish we hadn't affiliated the group with a Communist party on its first reference, but it's not untrue or inaccurate. Writer Joe Killian post on his conversations here.

In any case, I don't know if our story had any effect on attendance today, but about 300 anti-war protesters showed, and 150 counter protesters.No violence, either.

My newspaper column
Related posts: here, here and here.

I don't know about you, but I first read about the horror at Virginia Tech online. My wife saw it on television. One of our daughters heard about it from a text message on her phone. The other daughter saw it on Facebook.

I mention this because it shows clearly how the news business has exploded. No longer do a few news sources control or have the responsibility for news reporting. Everyone can do it. Dissemination of information now occurs through newspapers, television, news Web sites, personal blogs, cell phone video and mobile alerts, to name just a half dozen.

As a result, the news cycle never ends. Because it runs 24/7, the market and appetite for news satiates faster than ever.

I, for one, have found that I fill up quickly. When the menu is Anna Nicole's baby or Britney's haircut, I can bypass it without a second thought. The newspaper does little with such light-weight tabloid stories because we don't consider them news.

There will be plenty of tributes to David Halberstam today. I'd only met the man through his books and Doonesbury many years ago. Yet, The Powers that Be, his 1979 book about the burgeoning power of the media in the modern age, is one of the reasons I remained in journalism. That book centered on the rise of CBS, Time, The Washington Post and The L.A. Times. He wrote of the power and the pitfalls in a way that was both inspiring and cautionary. Read with the perspective of today, my guess is that you can understand why all but the Post are having their problems.

I welcome Skip Alston to the blogging community. I'm optimistic that the county commissioner says that all elected officials should follow the blogging leads of Council member Sandy Carmany and Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen. That said I hope he grows from his first entry (as most of us have). He tells us he wants to hear from us and ends with, WELL THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT NOW, PLAY IT AS YOU WILL. (caps his.)

I'd suggest, Skip, that the ball is still in your court. At its most effective, this is a multiple-way conversation that is nourished by your posts and your interaction with commenters. Here's what I said to Council member Tom Phillips (and others) when he started his now-defunct blog. My hope is that, as public servants, they embrace the potential before them, and they use their blogs to further the principles of democracy, and develop the sites as places to give and get information and knowledge. What a wonderful way, for instance, to illuminate the council's thinking on a contentious issue or perhaps reveal some of the civic conversation that takes place behind closed doors.

We have been here before with public officials announcing blogs, but going nowhere. I'm hoping that Skip, who has never showed fear of speaking his mind, will blaze trails as Jeff and Sandy have.

And, no, it doesn't bother me that the N&R isn't listed in his Mediaroll.

Good update from TheShu in the comments, clarifying the status of the Bruce Davis blog.

We presented our in-house journalism awards this afternoon. These awards honor journalists who put their best work out there day after day. Unlike other contests, the Landmark Awards are based on a body of work for a year rather than a single story or photo. As a consequence, versatility of skills, consistency of excellence and depth of understanding are key considerations.

The winners:

Last year I posted my e-mail exchange with Jerry Bledsoe as he was seeking information for his never-ending series on the Greensboro Police Department. Because I doubted his motives, I asked for an e-mail interview purposely to have a record of the interview. Lots of comments (and derision) ensued.

Jeff Jarvis has a good post outlining why interviewing is evolving past face-to-face conversations dictated by the interviewer. His main points:
* Who says that reporters are in charge of interviews anymore?
* Are interviews about information or gotcha moments?
* Perform the interview in writing, in public.
* My words are mine.
* Quotes need no longer be taken out of context.
* Interviews and articles need never end.

I have been on both sides of interviews. I've misquoted and been misquoted. These days I give interviews orally and in writing. Sometimes I prefer interviews in writing for the very reasons Jarvis notes. I keep the responsibility for my own words. I can still be misquoted, but it almost has to be done on purpose. It is then easy for me to expose it. In the end, I can think through my thoughts fully and express myself cogently.

Other times, I'm happy giving an oral interview because I've already thought through the topic at hand or, more likely, I'm pressed for time.

Not everyone on my staff agrees with me. Daily deadlines often force the quicker phone interview. Those are easier, too, particularly when you've caught a source on his cell phone and away from a computer. And depending on the sort of story you're writing, you may want to have the face-to-face sit-down interview. But if you're doing it only to ambush the source, then who is going to be served? Not the reader.

It is a new world out there and as has been shown many times, best practices change.

We've hired Monica Chen, a reporter with The Herald of Rock Hill, S.C., to help cover High Point for us. A graduate of UNC, she has also worked as a reporter at the Smithfield Herald.

I don't know if is the congressional vote on the Iraq spending bill, the impending presidential veto, the Democratic debate or the phases of the moon, but I received three e-mails this morning, all with similar sentiments, all submitting that the newspaper is purposely keeping people in the dark:

One: You print "SENATE PASSES IRAQ WITHDRAWAL BILL"....should have read "DEMOCRATS VOTE
AGAINST TROOPS IN IRAQ" (hoping that we are defeated and they could possibly gain the White House in 2008, if we have enough uninformed people go to the polls).

Two: A copy of Lt. Col. Joe Repya's 2005 "I'm Tired" letter expressing disappointment with the lack of public support for the war.

Three: A question why we don't run more photos of demonstrations in Europe calling for violence against all who don't support Islam. (Photos attached.) The writer of the original e-mail -- forwarded to me by a local reader -- suggested that Americans are in the dark about the threat to our freedoms. The local reader added: I think it would be nice for the American people, not only Greensboro, to frequently see these types of photos to remind them of what really goes on in the world and how it can happen here just as easily. But, since it might give the president a positive showing in the war on terror, I would not expect to see that in your publication.

These aren't official letters to the editor for publication, but personal e-mails. Three objecting to our coverage of the war wasn't unusual during the 2006 election season, but I haven't gotten three a month this year. It may only be a coincidence and not a trend, but it is curious. And I believe the people who read the newspaper are smarter than that.

We have always operated under the idea that the best way to build content online is to integrate it into the work of what was formerly known as our newspaper newsroom. A room full of journalists, originally hired to create content for the newspaper, can just as easily learn to create content for the web, too. We've moved to a newsroom that publishes content -- newspaper or online -- as soon as we have it verified, or, in the case, of the blogs, as soon as we have our thoughts together.

It's worked out pretty well so far.

We're going to amend/extend that thinking. Amy Dominellois going to report for online. She will report breaking news, updates and enterprise pieces that we aren't getting now. She won't officially be a MoJo. She'll have a place in our office, but she'll have the laptop, still and video cameras, and a nose for news. Because we're making her asking her to report to work at 6:30 a.m., she will extend the time people can come to our site for new news. Presumably some of her stuff will be published in the paper, too, although she doesn't have any specific newspaper duties.

In addition, Jerry Wolford, one of our award-winning photographers, will spend most of his time shooting and reporting multi-media and video. His work, too, will span breaking news to enterprise.

Our policy continues to be that everyone posts news as soon as they know it. Amy's and Jerry's work will be gravy, making the site fresher and more robust. Their measure of success? Using their journalistic skill and online savvy to help readers and drive traffic. Because this is new to us, their jobs will evolve. Will it follow the initiative at Spokane? Perhaps. We're learning every day.

It is arguable that they are our first online reporters.* What is certain is that they won't be our last.

Howard at Etaoin Shrdlu, a site for McClatchy papers, has a clearly-stated post that describes where we are:

Like all companies, we're working hard to restructure costs and operations to make them affordable within new revenue realities. Unlike some, we're trying to do that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater: keeping as much staff as we can in newsrooms and sales departments, emphasizing growth online to backfill eroding print revenues, sustaining the print franchise as much as possible, launching new products, learning new skills, and above all focusing on total audience growth as the best hope for both our finances and our community service mission.

* Right now, Michael Grossman and Michael Fuchs report stories online, but their primary duties are to build the news on the site, posting stories, creating links, helping to maintain blogs, etc.

Sunday update: I like Gary Goldhammer's description of reporters here.

Joe Murphy, a visitor of this blog and formerly of the Winston-Salem Journal, posts some advice for newspaper transparency. No. 2:

Start an editor's blog, or ombudsman blog, or some blog written by somebody with the authority to write about the decisions the paper makes.

And Ryan Sholin adds:

A word of warning: Depending on the community's ideas about the paper, you could be putting your boss in a dunk tank. If they mind getting wet now and then, they're not going to be thrilled about it. But I'm pretty sure that's part of the job description, isn't it?

And I can swim.