News-Record.com

I've exchanged some e-mail with a man who believes we should cover the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murders.

Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21, were a couple from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were murdered, and according to the grand jury both the man and woman were raped after being kidnapped early on the morning of January 7, 2007. Their vehicle had been carjacked.

Five suspects have been arrested and charged in the case. A Tennessee grand jury indicted four of the suspects on 46 counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape and theft, while one suspect faces federal charges on carjacking.

Christian and Newsom were white. The five suspects are black. Much discussion and e-mail flow around the idea that their case is being ignored because the accused are black and the victims are white. The perception is that the media sensationalize white-on-black violence as hate crimes, but don't touch it when it is the other way around. I've not read a plausible reason why the media might do this.

I told my correspondent that we aren't going to staff a case in another state without any local connection. We will publish wire stories as appropriate. Now, Jack McElroy, editor of the Knoxville News-Sentinel, the paper in the city where the homicides occurred, addresses the same issue.

To date, authorities have presented no evidence pointing to race as a factor -- much less a prime mover -- in this tragic crime. If and when they do, we should, and will, report it.

Makes sense to me.

My newspaper column

You know that dream in which you arrive at school to discover you have an exam in a course you never attended?

That's me on the day in April when the 12 finalists in the News & Record Scholastic Achievement Program came for their interviews.

They'rre top of their class. I was a straight-B student on my better days. They've got it all going on. The only thing I've got going on is Marvin Gaye on an eight-track.

There's Kira Mengistu of the Early College at Guilford who has lived in Belarus, Ethiopia and the United States. She is going to major in either international relations or bio-chemistry. At Harvard. I became an English major specifically to avoid chemistry.

Bill O'Neil at WXII called me this morning to inquire why there was no N.C. A&T ad on the Sunday comics. It was the first time he could remember when the ad wasn't there.

(I looked at my calendar, but April 1 had passed. These are the interviews in which I most closely identify with news sources who wonder, "this is what you consider news?")

I told him that A&T canceled the comics page ad three or four weeks ago, but that the school is still advertising with us, as they had an ad in Sunday's Ideas section. I told him I don't know why they stopped advertising on the comics page, and suggested he call A&T. He said he was awaiting a call back. I also gave him the number of the person in our ad department who handles that account. I told him that I doubted it had anything to do with our recent news coverage, as I'd have probably heard about that.

I know those A&T ads attract a lot of attention because I often hear from people upset that the ad interferes with their enjoyment of the comics, but I am impressed at his eagle eye and readership.

Every newspaper editor knows that readers prize those daily features that have nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with the joy of reading the paper. In our case, we're talking about the bridge column, the Jumble, the crossword puzzles, the comics, the horoscope, the cryptoquote and Sudoku. Miss one of these and the phone calls and e-mails outnumber by 10-fold the feedback on any piece of serious journalism.

This morning, we left out one of the two crossword puzzles we publish by mistake and by 9 a.m. we had gotten a dozen calls in the newsroom. Many more in customer service.

All of these features are commodity content, available everywhere. Following some of the logic we use on other things, we could drop them, save their cost and use the space for unique content. Yet, I am not considering it, and I doubt there are many newspaper editors who are. The savings would be minor and the costs high. All of the traditional daily features add to the value of the newspaper experience. The real question is whether we should add more. When I told one woman that we would run the omitted crossword along with the other two tomorrow, she said, "That's wonderful! That paper will be worth 75 cents."

Does lend some perspective.

Robert Gates spoke to the U.S. Naval Academy commencement last week and, boy, was it a crackerjack. (Apologies for being late on this. I just read about it in that MSM oldie but goody Newsweek.

And here's the reason I'm writing about it.

Today, I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two pillars of our freedom under the Constitution -- the Congress and the press. Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people.

and

The same is true with the press, in my view a critically important guarantor of our freedom. When it identifies a problem, as at Walter Reed, the response of senior leaders should be to find out if the allegations are true -- as they were at Walter Reed -- and if so, say so, and then act to remedy the problem. If untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.

I promise the quotes are in context. Read the speech.

Now, I hear from those who think of this newspaper, believe it or not, as anti-American and use our coverage of the war, the president, the military and Walter Reed to illustrate their points. "We blew Walter Reed out of proportion." "We ignore the progress in Iraq." "We don't celebrate our citizens in the military." "We only write about the deaths in Baghdad."

Because we publish news articles that don't align with their views, some hold this perception -- delusion, really -- that we don't support American soldiers and Marines. Pretty crazy what some people will believe.

I don't really expect the comments of the Secretary of Defense to change anyone's mind. But from an administration that reportedly doesn't care for the press, his words are nice to read.

Today is the 63rd anniversay of D-Day. We didn't have a full news story in the paper, an omission that several irritated readers have pointed out.

If we had not been over there, we would be speaking German today, one caller said.

Today -- along with Dec. 7, Memorial Day and Veterans Day -- require news stories or people think you don't respect veterans, which is far, far from the truth.

Here's our deal: We didn't publish a full news story today because, frankly, we didn't have anything very good. But on A2, we noted that today was the anniversary and sent readers to three Web sites with D-Day information. We also published a column by Ned Harrison about D-Day in our community newspaper inserted inside the N&R in Guilford County. Our plan is to provide a decent package on the commemorations that occurred today for tomorrow's paper, including a story about this.

Tough, tough day. A bunch of outstanding journalists -- a bunch of outstanding people -- left here today. Here's the story. Met with them all. Met with the staff. Everyone feels the sense of loss; everyone's a pro.

Now's not the time nor do I have the psychic and mental stamina to talk about the newspaper business. My thoughts are with the people.

More later.

I met in one form or another all day with reporters and editors. Some are angry. Some are sad. Most are some of both. Many understand the logic behind the action. Most are processing it and dealing with the emotions as best they can. Me, too.

And they're getting the paper out and filling up the Web site. Pros.

Next week, we'll begin reinventing the paper. I respect the people who left here yesterday too much to suggest that things will be the same. We'll focus on what we can do well and what our audience values, and drop the rest. That reinvention will center on:

* Public service journalism, including enterprise, investigative and community.
* Being audience-centric, not format-centric. A faster movement into online and mobile.
* Innovation and experimentation. We can create better cool, useful stuff.

I've neglected this site and the blogosphere because today the people in the newsroom are more important. Sorry about that, folks. I know you've been hungry for more red meat.

I've been busy over the past few days and have neglected the blogosphere. However, I have had enough people -- both friends I know and those I don't -- e-mail me to reassure me that I'm not the personification of evil being described out in the etherworld.

Who knew?

So I dipped into the frenzy, and, frankly, it's not as bad as I anticipated. Some truth, some of the typical non-sensical and goofy stuff. I know people are angry; I am, too. While calling me names and demanding my head may make some feel better, it doesn't make me feel worse, which I presume is the reason to do it. As commenters tell me here, they are skeptical of stuff they read in the paper. I always advise them to take that skepticism and apply it to everything they read, period. That still applies.

I understand the need to assign a villain, and I'm as good as anyone. But in truth, there's no villain here. Gathering and publishing information costs money, but more and more people don't want to pay for it. Many traditional newspaper advertisers are either consolidating or going out of business. Free classifieds contribute. Corporate greed is an easy target, but it's not the case here. While some publicly traded newspapers have high margins, we don't. The company has done a lot to forgo Thursday's action. Most of them I've chronicled here.

We're making the transition to the new digital age. I remain optimistic about journalism. Quality journalism will not be sacrificed. Nor will investigative reporting or community building. There are potholes in the road and ditches on the sides. We have and will hit both. We learn and adjust.

My newspaper column
Related posts here, here and here.

When you work at a newspaper, you handle stories of heart-wrenching loss constantly. They stream in from our own community and from across the globe on our wire services. Because they never end -- it is the nature of news, after all -- many journalists view them with a degree of detachment, as ink on newsprint or pixels on a screen.

It is a way of dealing emotionally day-in and day-out with all the bad news.

Occasionally, a news story hits you personally with the force of a Mack truck.

So it was Thursday, as 41 people were laid off here. That included 11 full-timers and seven part-timers in the news room. (There are still more than 100 people in the news department.)

You may have missed this documentary about the relationship between a Klansman and FBI agent. It is part of a package that also included a story about the two men and their times we published on Sunday.

If there is any doubt about the value of print and video complementing each other, this should put that to rest. Reading the story gave me chills up my spine; watching the video raised the hair on the backs of my arms. Different sensations, both spooky.

After the intro video, there are snippets of video comments on other topics. Find the one about the "damn yankees." It made me smile.

Credit photojournalist Jerry Wolford and assistant Life editor Mike Kernels for their collaboration on this.

Wednesday update: Journalism prof and insightful blogger Mindy McAdams discusses the project and interviews Wolford on her blog.

Lenslinger marvels in the comments here about the passion, shall we say, unleashed among readers about layoffs. I am blown away by the visceral reaction of your audience at large. Newspapers may indeed be on the ropes, but the level of outrage, hurt and innuendo expressed by an extremely attentive readership still packs one hell of a punch.

I dare say if we downsized our broadcast staff, the viewer reaction wouldn't be anywhere near as explosive. Unless, of course, we pre-empted American Idol. Then they'd burn the building down. Metaphorically speaking, of course...

I speculated that TV watchers have a similar amount of passion -- normally directed at the sexy on-air talent -- but it is based on their affection for the personalities. The passion directed at us is generally negative. (You don't realize how lovable I am.) Much of it is because we take editorial stands; we print more stories, which equates to more potential to irritate people; and we are physically non-perishable so that you can't miss "a viewing" if you're not home at 6.

Other reasons? Am I missing the boat?

Lenslinger comes back: Come to think of it, there's no mystery why papers are hated and stations are loved. You take stands on the editorial page, we show video of dogs in funny hats. You slather your reports in indelible ink, we're half-watched through a curtain of kids and housepets. You make readers turn pages to find out more, we lull 'em to sleep with something frothy, then pitch it to a Seinfeld re-run.

I think he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, because I know he feels well-deserved pride in what he does. (Plus, we publish photos of dogs in funny hats, and lots of people read the paper through a curtain of kids, housepets and with the TV on.)

That people are passionate about the local paper is good. The emotional connection is vital. Does it matter if the passion is positive or negative? Would we like to be beloved? I suppose it would make me feel warm inside, but I doubt we would still be doing our job. Speaking with fondness about the paper is sort of like feeling affection for Microsoft: doesn't happen much. I do know that people like getting their photos published, though.

Columnist Lorraine Ahearn won honorable mention for a Casey Medal for meritorious journalism given by the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families. Essentially, her award is third place in this prestigious national contest. The awards honor coverage of disadvantaged children and families. More than 700 journalists entered contest in nine different categories. The judges said:

Ahern (sic) uses old-fashioned shoe leather to immerse herself in her community and writes eloquently about public policies that sometimes worsen situations for already-disadvantaged individuals.

Her editor, Betsi Robinson, is also recognized in the award, but, typically, she brushes aside her role and promises to smack me on the head if I put her in this post.

Here is one of the submitted columns.

Old hat for Lorraine; she won the thing in 2002.

Air Force Reserve 2nd Lt. Matthew J. Williams has graduated from Undergraduate Pilot Training at Columbus Air Force Base, Miss.

At the end of training, the officer received an aeronautical rating of pilot in the Air Force, competent and qualified to perform the duties and accept responsibilities thereof.

That's from a news release from the Army & Air Force Hometown News.

Some of you old-timers will remember Matt as our city hall reporter and pioneer bloggers. We hope that he returns to our staff, rather than flying jets, next spring.

This is two days too late, but my experience with Junior fans that there is no such thing as too late. Two experts, Dustin Long and Ed Hardin, talk about the effect of the signing of Dale Jr. to the Hendrick team.

Even though I saw a snippet of it on TV, it was interesting to me to be able to watch the video of Junior and Rick Hendrick talking about the move.

Thanks to both Dustin and Ed are ink-stained wretches learning the wonders of audio. (Ably assisted by Michael Fuchs, Michael Grossman and John Newsom.)

An upset e-mailer wrote to ask why we did not publish the disbarring of Mike Nifong on the front page this morning. Yet again, he wrote, we misunderstood -- and misplayed -- an important development in the Duke lacrosse story.

We are out of step with other papers in the area: Raleigh, Charlotte, Winston, Fayetteville, Richmond and Norfolk all feature the story on their front pages.

Did we miss it?

The decision to disbar came midday Saturday. I saw it on the local news at 6 o'clock yesterday and the network news at 6:30 p.m. (It was online earlier than that, but I wasn't.) I'd guess it was on SportsCenter, too.

In keeping with our efforts to give readers information that is new to them, we thought we had better stuff, stories they hadn't seen on elsewhere. (Extra treat: nice video of the Trooper Pace story here.)

So why did we publish Nifong's promised resignation as Durham DA on the front page on Saturday? The difference in the decisions on Saturday's and Sunday's front pages illustrate some of the tensions that play into "news judgment." On Friday, Nifong's pronouncement was the first official word that he was accepting responsibility for his actions. Still, it was on TV news early in the evening. But for our purposes, it competed well with the other stories we had working for Saturday's paper. In fact, only the discovery of toxins at Barber Park was stronger. Had we had stronger stories, we'd have dropped Nifong's resignation statement back to the local front.

For the record, Nifong's disbarment ran as the lead story on the front page of the local section.

Last week, Chris Roush interviewed me for a short profile piece for Business North Carolina magazine. I had told him that I wasn't the primary business guy in this company, but he/the magazine editors insisted. OK, whatever. The topic: Reinventing the newspaper.

Today, the photographer called to set up a shot. He said the magazine wants to get me in front of the presses.

I'm not sure they grasp the full concept of what I mean when I talk about reinventing the newspaper.

I wrote about the Tennessee murder case whose coverage (or lack of) by the media has outraged some sectors of the public. Columnist Leonard Pitts more prominently and more articulately wrote about it, too. Now Pitts has been threatened after a Web site posted his home phone number and address.

Asked by the Miami Herald to remove the information, the Web site editor declined. "Frankly, if some loony took the info and killed him, I wouldn't shed a tear. That also goes for your whole newsroom."

Nice.

I have just finished reading your article in the Life section of the Tueday paper about cockfighting. What would possess you to run an article about this subject? It only encourages this illegal and very brutal sport in our society.

That's from a reader. We get similar notes whenever we write about or photograph something beyond the mainstream. Add cock fighting to tattooing, binge drinking and passion parties. Readers think that by publishing such stories we are endorsing the behavior and/or we are irresponsibly spreading the word.

In this case, the story about cock fighting in the Philippines hardly makes the practice attractive. More interesting to me is the idea that a newspaper should avoid writing about unsavory or objectionable aspects of the world. For us, it's about delivering information so that you can expand or deepen the way you think about things.

Honestly, we don't do it enough.

I had a brief discussion last night with City Editor Teresa Prout about whether the story of the 40-year-old teacher marrying a 16-year-old student was A1 worthy. We knew it would be read by everyone because it has that salacious, creepy, hey-Martha-listen-to-this quality about it.

On the other hand, it had been out all day, isn't hugely important in the scheme of things, and had that salacious, creepy quality to it.

We published the story on our local front. Not sure now that I made the right decision last night.

Tim Rickard, our artist, cartoonist and author of "The Joke's on You", is having a book signing at 7 tonight at Barnes & Noble at Friendly Center. He wrote a book, too? Sorta, yeah. "Close Encounters of the Worst Kind" is a compilation of his Brewster Rockit comic strips.

Earlier this month, Tim was the featured player in a Washington Post online chat.

I hope Percy visits.

Timothy McNulty, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, lists 20 things that drive Tribune readers crazy. To be accurate, it's really a list of things readers complain to him about. In any case, I'm surprised at the number of items on his list that aren't on mine.

From his list, these are the things that also seem to drive readers here either to the loony bin or the gun cabinet:
* Wet papers
* Limited stock listings
* Missed anniversaries
* Voicemail hell
* Dumb grammatical mistakes
* Stories they don't agree with
* Opinion columns
* Long, languid anecdotes
* Simple mistakes

I'd add three more of my own:
* Omitted crosswords, Jumble and bridge column
* Stories that should or should not have been played on the front page
* Offensive taste

But I hear about these not so much:
* Ink smudges
* Missing sections
* Crossword puzzle errors
* Mistransferred calls
* No answer
* Foreign accents
* Pointless headlines
* Omissions
* Location
* Foreign languages

What's not on the list?

Kory Dodd, a reporter here for three years, has resigned to do media relations at Goucher College, which is closer to her home. Kory has reported from Rockingham County and High Point for us. She's probably best known for her work on the High Point ABC Board scandal. She's also done a lot of other pieces, of course.

Good luck, Kory.

One of the staffers here suggested to me that it was time to stop talking experimentation and place some bets. I said that I think we are making some moves, but that experimentation for innovation was critical. As I have thought more about it, some of the times I've been caught short by my short-sighted assumptions -- that my lens was the only way to view the possibilities -- have drifted back into my consciousness. And they have been a lesson to me not to assume that I "know" what works, without learning and exploring. Here are a couple of the more embarrassing ones:

* Back in the 90s, I didn't see the web as a huge threat to newspapers. I said that pages take too long to download. "I can read the entire newspaper in the time it takes to download half a dozen stories."
* About the same time, I told our publisher that we didn't need to worry about the classifieds. Our area is/was built on manufacturing jobs. Someone is going to search online for a textile mill job? Nah. (Fortunately, I wasn't in a position of any influence then.)
* Later, when we were pondering blogs, I asked our interactive specialist about their effect on traffic. He told me the value of blogs is not in page views but in the interactivity with visitors.
* When I first heard that IM'ing was the communication medium of choice for teenagers, it seemed nutty. "Why don't you just pick up the phone?" I asked. Then I watched my teenagers participate in a dozen conversations at once via IM, and I understood.
* "You found your college roommate through Facebook?" I asked my rising freshman. "Yep, I went to the UNC page, scrolled through a lot of people's pages and found some girls I thought I might like and starting talking to them." "What," I thought, in a flash of insight I knew enough not to say aloud, "that's a community you're a member of!"

Stop experimentation? I don't think so. I hope I've learned not to discount the possibilities and opportunities of new technology. (What we want to do and what we're able to do are different things.)

The current dust-up involving bloggers participating in an ad program for Microsoft coming two days after the dust-up about journalists contributing to political campaigns reminds me of the confusion/disbelief some readers have about the proper relationship between advertising and journalism. Or, rather, the relationship as we practice it.

It's actually pretty simple: We're independent. Advertisers don't buy our news content. They buy the opportunity to have their advertising message delivered to readers of the paper in clearly identified ads.

We don't want our readers to feel they are being sold a bill of goods or not getting the straight scoop. That hurts our credibility far more than pandering to someone with deep pockets helps the bottom line.

I can understand that some readers don't buy that; it seems counterintuitive that we might bite the hand that feeds us. But ask an advertiser if they get preferential treatment on news stories and they will tell you -- sometimes with a bit of resentment -- that they don't. Some try, but don't get out of the gate. That's the way it works.

The business about donations to political causes is the other side of the same coin. We don't do it for the same reason. Do some journalists -- as some bloggers -- make a mistake? Yes. Our code of ethics covers it. Donating money to political campaigns and parties is prohibited. Donations to or memberships in organizations with political agendas should be carefully considered.

All this seems hidebound to some who prefer that we acknowledge all of our opinions, political and otherwise, but we aren't at that point yet, and I'm not convinced our readers want us to be.

The good news is that we've rehired Jonnelle Davis, a reporter we laid off, to fill the vacancy left by Kory Dodd.

The bad news is that Jonathan Jones, our court reporter, has resigned to attend UNC law school this fall. (OK, not bad news for him, but for us.) Jonathan, who wrote today's front page story, has also been a frequent blog commenter. According to the public polls, he's leaving one line of work that isn't high on the public's list of respected jobs to join one that's even lower. He has his work cut out for him. If anyone can lift the ratings, he can. We'll miss him; he's not leaving until the end of July.

My friend Melanie Sill, editor and vp at the N&O, explains why she doesn't answer most anonymous e-mail. I figure it's like an old-fashioned letter without a return address or signature. No reply needed.

Not me. I try to answer all e-mail*, including some that's not even sent to me or expecting a reply (letters for publication as "letters to the editor"). I get a load of correspondence, but I figure if someone sits down to write down their thoughts, they deserve a reply. Even if the anonymous e-mails are personal attacks, I'll answer. Just because someone is showing me their lack of upbringing doesn't mean I forget mine.

To tell the truth, it's not infrequent that, within their attacks, the e-mailers have a good point that should be acknowledged. (Although, I quibble with the guy who wrote that my stewardship of the paper rivals Saddam's reign over Iraq.)

It would be nice if the writers had the courage to sign their e-mails. You all know what I think of anonymous commenters. Still, I think they deserve a reply.

* Some of my regular correspondents don't get immediate replies to every e-mails. I'm thinking we have the sort of relationship that allows that.

Rich Gordon at the Readership Institute compares and contrasts how two stories were picked up and distributed through traditional newspaper channels and through blogs.

Both of these articles are about privacy in the digital age. Both were distributed through the Associated Press and were therefore available to any news organization -- traditional media or Web sites -- that subscribed to the AP. And both were also available on the News21 Web site. But the stories earned public attention through very different means.

The short answer: one was picked up by a bunch of papers and got a lot of eyeballs that way. The other was spread virally through blogs and pretty much ignored by papers. Welcome, he says, to the Long Tail.

Rich lists the lessons he draws. I'd add:

* The power of search engines can't be underestimated.
* Every topic draws a degree of interest among a percentage of the audience. The topic is not irrelevant in this case, either. Newspapers have a bias in favor of those with a civic/taxpayer orientation.
* Finding a Paris Hilton angle helps.

Then there is Dan Blank, writing about the rise of the little people: When the goal is truly to inform, to express, and to grow -- both sides have the same goals. As each adjusts to understand where media is headed, how journalism will grow, and how each will be funded, I hope that we find more in common, than we find to divide us.

Unfortunately, I can't do his post justice so you'll have to follow the link yourself. But the joy is how he came to the above conclusion. A hint: he uses Transformers and Fisher Price Little People.

Meblogin and I are having a discussion of sorts about anonymous commenters and bloggers. I said it would be nice if anonymous folk would had the courage to sign their real names. Me says, "Many authors choose a fictious name. Sometimes the choice has nothing to do with courage."

I can sort of see it if you are experiencing the thrill of creating and maintaining a fantasy persona. But for those of you who comment here, participating in occasionally serious discussion of civic issues, what is the reason behind your anonymity?

It take a special angel to be the spouse of a newspaper editor. Missed dinners, shortened vacations, calls at all hours, public criticism. And we lost just such an angel yesterday when Eugenia Bowers, wife of retired N&R editor Ben Bowers, passed away. She was a quiet, warm, welcoming presence who always raised the level of discourse whenever she was around. We mourn her loss.

Saturday update: Arrangements.

Sources decline to talk with us all the time. It's their right. I've done it myself. Occasionally a person's reticence stops us from writing a story, but not often.

It's not surprising that Coliseum Director Matt Brown is refusing to talk with us. He is an emotional, passionate, intense guy who routinely criticizes our coverage of the coliseum. That, too, is his right. Sometimes he's right, most times he's not. And it has gotten him into trouble before.

But he's a city official and is paid with tax dollars. This taxpayer thinks he has a responsibility to explain his role in the campaign of someone wanting to be a council member. It is more than a personnel matter; it's a matter of public interest. If Brown doesn't feel the need to answer for his actions -- which is quite unlike him -- then his bosses with the city should. Sooner rather than later. It's not going to go away. And it's not going to help the campaign of a candidate he apparently supports.

I've also posted on the value of e-mail interviews. If Brown doesn't trust our reporting of his words and actions, we'll happily conduct an open e-mail interview and both he and we can post the exchange.