News-Record.com

Innovation in College Media posts about journalism graduates taking time out to "find themselves."

True that. We are seeing more people who are leaving the business altogether than I can ever recall. Some are peering into the future and seeking a different, perhaps more secure road. Some realize that they aren't cut out for journalism, and their skills and interests lead them elsewhere. Some discover their professional trajectory -- moving up the ladder to the larger papers in the country -- has been stalled by hiring freezes and intense competition.

Someone in the comments to that post mentions low pay, long hours and some bad assignments. If the folks didn't come into journalism with those expectations, then they didn't do their occupational research very well. For most of us here, it still beats just about anything this side of being Bill Gates.

For the record, I left newspapers for awhile and came back. Everything else seemed so boring.

Larry Timbs, a mass communication professor at Winthrop College, has written a paper about blogging and community newspapers. Actually, he presented it last fall, but just now sent me a link to it. Round here, he interviewed me, Mel and Jeffrey Sykes. Lots of others, too, if you're interested in newspaper blogging.

Which story has a bigger impact:

(A) This one from the front page Friday saying that the N.C. Legislative Black Caucus gave scholarships to the relatives of five of its legislator-members.
(B) A short story on page B3 Friday saying that the Greensboro Urban Ministry is collecting used jewelry to raise money to offset its $30,000 budget shortfall for its emergency homeless shelter.

Many journalists would instinctively answer A. Elected officials representing the people directing money to their own relatives? Hello? Ethics 101?

Buzzzz. Wrong answer. Correct answer is B.

Upon reading that story, Christian City Church stepped up. Big. To the tune of $40,000.

Impact journalism -- the kind that changes lives -- doesn't have to be an investigation into wrongdoing, or long and complicated, or on the front page to make a difference in the world. It only has to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of its audience so that they will do something with the information they're given.

We didn't invest much time or effort into the original story. We just published it. But what a difference that made to the people who use the homeless shelter.

In truth, the comparison between the two stories is unfair. Both have impact, although story A's may be a bit delayed. Both are necessary. And both find a home here.

Children at Play
A 4-year-old Iraqi child cries as older boys stage a mock execution Monday in Baghdad, Iraq. Children's games are under a heavy influence of ongoing violence in the country. One of the more popular games is the clash between militias and police.

That photo by Hadi Mizban of the AP evoked this reaction from a reader this morning:

The photo of "Children At Play" in today's News & Record, page A2, is very, very, very disturbing. How can you show such an influential photo such as this?? Do you have any realization as to what influence this will have on children much less some adults? This is not news. It is sensationlism on your part. Why can't you show photos of our troops helping the children? Many times in the past you have upset many people with some of your photos, but this one takes the cake. Where are your ethics????? Where are your morals????

Kids conducting mock executions in a war zone. As fun. Disturbing? I'd say so. Also, compelling, dramatic and sad. It's hard to take your eyes off it. Mizban knew a good story when he saw one and his photo tells the story well.

I am not sure what is immoral about the photograph. I grew up playing with cap pistols, squirt guns, dart guns and, notably, the Rifleman Flip Special. I killed and was killed many times over. I never confused what I played with with real guns. I'm dubious of the claim that a child will look at the photo and do anything rash, not with what they can see every day on television.

Good photography is often disturbing. Evoking a visceral reaction in readers on important topics is something newspapers must do more of. I think the photo worked.

In addition to the News & Record, our carriers deliver the Wall Street Journal. It's a business arrangement; we make some money and the Journal saves some of the cost of maintaining its own carrier force

The carriers of the Colorado Springs Gazette deliver that paper, the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today to subscribers in that area of Colorado.

Gazette editor Jeff Thomas writes a bit wistfully: Journalistically, however, it will feel a bit strange. Should the Post or Rocky ever beat us to a story, we'll be in the business of literally handing you the other paper's scoop.

Newspaper wars ain't what they used to be.

I understand his point, but the world has changed. I'd like our carriers, who are independent contractors, to deliver all the newspapers circulated in this area, which includes USA Today and The New York Times. People want them and are going to get them one way or another. We might as well be the company that makes money delivering some other newspaper.

I remain impressed that the opinions of Joseph R. Bag O'Doughnuts III, a fictional columnist -- sorry to reveal that dirty little secret, Lorraine -- are treated seriously enough to get two published letters to the editor.

Now, both Mayor Keith Holliday and Commissioner Skip Alston have complained to me about Lorraine using parody to create fictional meeting transcripts that reflect, well, poorly upon the elected bodies. Both said they thought that readers might think the silliness that Lorraine described actually occurred. Telling.

Anyway, Joey, as he's known to his Italian fratelli, wasn't involved in those columns. I must admit, though, that I don't recall his opinions ever being treated with such respect in public before. I'm thinking he has potential to be a good blogger.

I was talking to online editor Michael Grossman when he got an e-mail news release from the Rockingham County Sheriff's Department. The message line read "Sheep shot." He didn't even need to open the mail to say, "Here's our No. 1 viewed story today."

We'll see. Right now, #1 is this, but it has been up all day. I think it has tough competition.

This hasn't happened to us yet. At least, I don't think a commenter on a story has corrected information in the story. It happens on the blogs with some frequency, though. Roy Williams -- no, not that one -- did it yesterday here.

Why not on the stories themselves? Our story comment feature isn't as elegant as commenting on blogs. That is, it's awkward and complicated. And it's harder for our staff to monitor the comments as they come in.

Grindley, referring to the fears of some print journalists: If commenters actively try to debunk reporting it might disenfranchise readers. Or, they worry about confusion created by presenting readers' opinions on the same page as what is supposed to be objective reporting.

We've long since gotten over that. We know that individual readers know more about individual stories than we do. I learned that when I was writing editorials. It's humbling to weigh in with an opinion on a topic when you know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people who know more about the topic than you.

He goes on: Readers are smarter than they're given credit. Not only can they tell the difference between what is from the newspaper and what isn't, but also they appreciate the attempt at transparency.

Yep.

If you need a smile on a slow Saturday, read this list of 50 things you should never say.

Fred, jaycee, Bubba: Don't blame me for #4.

Ed, sorry 'bout #13 and #27.

I go through various emotional and mental stages with this blog. Now I read two bloggers who have tracked them in two different five-stage tracks. First, Kent Newsome outlined one lifecycle of blogging, from Excitement to Abandonment. Then, Jeremiah Owyang responds with his, starting with Excitement and ending at Achievement. Read them both; they're short and seem right. (Via Dan Blank.)

At various times, I've hit Stage 3 (Frustration) in Newsome's and Step 4 (Passion) in Owyang's. Thankfully, I'm swimming Owyang's pool right now.

...be back soon

While I was away, we debuted three new blogs: Unbuttoned, Culture Shock and The Joke's On You.

They describe themselves. Check them out.

We're doing a mini-revamp of the blogs, cleaning some of the old ones out and introducing news ones. More to come.

Congratulations go out to reporters Maria Johnson and Dawn Kane, who both won writing awards of excellence in the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors contest. Maria won first place in the Short Feature category and Dawn won third place in the Arts and Entertainment category.

Maria's entry was a story about kids walking to school. Dawn's was about the people who turn the pages of the sheet music for pianists.

This is one of the biggies.

The win is bittersweet because Maria is one of the people we let go last month.

With everything else happening in the world, you should know that the comics page readers are the most consistent writers to the editor about their concerns with the paper. (Although as the election heats up, that will change as a later post will attest.)

Here's part of a letter to the editor that came in this week:

A few years ago the News & Record let it be known the entire comics page was under review and a poll would be taken to measure support for each strip. I called the number listed and talked to the person handling the poll. I asked her why the N & R had never carried Prince Valiant, which for 50 years had been the best drawn strip in the country. I paraphrase her reply, but accurately. "That’s the trouble with Prince Valiant; it's an old strip for old people. We want new strips for young people."

Finally, in the pell-mell rush to hip new relevance it appears the N & R nevertheless gave thought to political correctness in the comics -- or is that just a funny feeling I get?

A couple thoughts: I don't know why he brought Steve Canyon and Dick Tracy into it. I don't know if we used to run them, but we haven't for at least 20 years. And some of the others he mentions aren't offered any longer.

Political correctness? Because we don't run those comics of yesteryear and replaced them with Cathy and Jump Start?

His memory of the explanation he got from the person he spoke with six years ago is probably pretty close, although it omits the perspective that, at the time, all of our comics appealed to the 60+ demographic and we were trying to include some that might appeal to people closer to, say, 35. We don't expect everyone to like every comic strip we offer. Our hope is that everyone will find several among the offerings that they may enjoy.

As more candidates file for the municipal elections -- more than two dozen have so far -- we're interested in giving you more information about each online. We also want to involve you more in the coverage, ranging from soliciting your questions for the candidates to connecting you directly to them. With the ability to do video, chat, links and blogs, we have the opportunity not only to extend the ways we provide information, but also to bring you directly into the process.

Help us explore that. How can we bring the candidates and process closer to you? Or, if you prefer, make both clearer to you? What information would help you determine which candidate to support? What can we do for you?

Your newspaper goes farther to the "left" every day. You have already started your negative Fred Thompson stories. Where are all the stories about Sen. Hillary Clinton and the many illegal activities she committed during her time in the White House? What about the 140 pardons given out by President Clinton, including real criminals such as 6 members of the FALN?

Every 5-4 decision by the present Supreme Court is described as a victory for the "Radical Right." When it was a 5-4 decision in the past, it was a victory for the people. Remember "fairness" is a two way street.

That letter to the editor was published while I was gone. It also received two dozen comments. I need to add one more.

I don't know what negative stories the writer was refering to. Most recently, we published a short item about Thompson not filing financial disclosures, which is permissible as he's not an official candidate. Didn't seem negative. A couple weeks before that, we published a story about Hillary Clinton criticizing Thompson for suggesting illegal Cuban immigrants pose a terrorist threat. The next story was positive, about how his candidacy excited Southern Baptists. That's it since April.

We have published numerous stories about the Clinton's actions in the White House back when they were in the White House. I also searched our archives for radical right and Supreme Court, and the last time those two terms were used together in the News & Record was in 1995.

As the campaign heats up, so do the accusations and rhetoric. We'll get and publish more and more letters like this from now through November 2008, as painful as that prospect seems to me. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the engagement, passion and strong opinion the writers bring to the topic. I just wish they would care as much about documenting what they write.

A friend and reader of this blog e-mailed me to suggest that I clip and hang today's Pearls Before Swine comic on my computer. Don't know why. (Link updated. Thanks, Jay.)

Update: And an oddly related post.

Several good newspaper columns published today:

Clark Hoyt in the New York Times writes about the difficulty newspapers have writing about themselves. So true, particularly, as in our case, the newspaper is privately held. We could do better.

Kate Perry at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune writes about how a newspaper chooses stories for its front page. Their practices seem to closely mirror ours.

Ted Vaden at the N&O writes about a topic dear to our letterwriters' hearts: John Edwards' hair. We haven't done a lot with his hair, I don't think, which could be interpreted either as ignoring a flaw in his character or prefering to focus on more serious issues in the campaign.

Ted Diadun at the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes about why newspapers seem to be constantly changing things. Dead-on right.

After reading about the Medill School of Journalism's new curricula, I've refined and simplified my list of job applicant qualifications:

* Curiosity. It's not just a journalistic curiosity about how things work or why things are the way they are or why some person did what he did. It's a curiosity about new things -- new technology, new ways to practice journalism and new ways to engage and interact with an audience. Without it, you're SOL; take up stenography.
* Skepticism. Everyone will try to spin you. Everyone: your best sources, your friends, your mama. They want the story told their way. Nothing wrong with that. But their way may not be the clearest, most accurate way. Without that innate shit detector, you'll never go far. Doesn't do much for your social life, though.
* Flexibility. The business is changing rapidly. The idea that you're strictly a reporter or a photographer or an editor is as outdated as vinyl lps. Continuous learning and adaptation is vital. Not only do you need to be willing to experiment with new things, you should embrace them. Journalists cover change; be the change you cover.
* Public service. It's not about you. It's about everyone but you, actually. Our job is to give the audience the information it needs. If you don't want to put the interests of your audience ahead of your agenda or your byline, look elsewhere.

Everything else is teachable.

I don't much care for Barry Bonds. It's not that I feel great loyalty to Hank Aaron, although I have immense respect for him as a ballplayer and as a man. It's not so much the cloud of suspicion over Bonds' use of performance enhancers, although I think the evidence that he juiced is overwhelming.

It's that he plays in San Francisco. Games there tend to start at 10:15 p.m. EST. That plays havoc with our deadlines for the morning paper. Unless he breaks the home run record in his first or second at bat, we're squirming more than like Bud Selig trying to explain what he's going to do when Bonds takes the record.

We have a plan to feature his 756th homerun above the newspaper nameplate and even using the nameplate itself, and then sending readers to the Sports section. But the timing will be tight and needs some stars to align. It would be nice to have some sports news in the paper that the audience hadn't already seen on television. (And we're prepared for the readers who write in saying that sports stories belong in the sports section, not on the front page.)

There's a decent chance Bonds will move closer to the record tonight. He faces a Braves pitcher who has given up four homers to him in 18 at bats. And it's his birthday. I'm hoping Bonds will hit one or two tonight and tomorrow and break the record on Thursday.

The game Thursday starts at 7:05 p.m. EST.

(And the added benefit is that we won't have to hear/read so much about the guy and the homer chase.)

As noted by Ed and Poynter, the L.A. Times drops in on hyperlocal citizen political blogs. These muckraking bloggers say they have stepped in to fill the government watchdog vacuum. Some are anonymous, others are scurrilous and, on occasion, possibly libelous. And to local politicians, most are a royal pain in the tuchis.

Yes, yes, and yes. But the point of the article: It may only be a matter of time before bloggers start to have a major influence in local politics and policymaking.

It's the sort of line that we journalists stick in stories to let readers know why they might care. (Ignore those namby-pamby, wide-open-to-interpretation qualifiers such as "may," "matter of time," and "start to have." We use those to give ourselves an out when we aren't sure about something but want to sound authoritative.)

The Times story described a blogosphere that sounds like ours -- you don't need to echo the part about the local press. Personally, I get the sense that local policy makers see citizen muckraking bloggers as an irritant, but not as a significant influence. (Muckraking and irritated public officials go hand in hand so that reaction is hardly surprising.)

It would be interesting to hear our blogging elected officials -- Sandy Carmany, Skip Alston, Dianne Bellamy-Small and Jeff Thigpen, and former blogger Tom Phillips -- address whether bloggers have influenced local politics and policymaking and when. If they don't now, is it truly just a matter of time before they will? How long?

Update: I tried to e-mail e-mailed the elected officials above inviting them to weigh in. That was an experience. From Skip's blog, I e-mailed him directly. Worked fine. From Dianne's blog, the e-mail went to Skip. Sandy's blog didn't have an e-mail address listed. I went to the city's official site and e-mailed her and Dianne and got a message from a woman in the city offices -- not Dianne or Sandy -- saying she was out of the office until Thursday. I couldn't find an e-mail option on Jeff's blog either and e-mailed him, presumably successfully, from the official Register of Deeds' site.

I'm starting to see Paul Gibson's point about just calling him.

Here's your sneak preview before any ad goes out: Dave Parsons, the guy who has helped introduce us to video, is leaving to work at Nortel. I hate it. He is a great guy and we're just getting some momentum going.

Video experts who want to help a newspaper news division explore the possibilities? Lenslinger? Write me.

Isn't it interesting what you can find out by searching through public e-mail? But doesn't it seem as if this is these are the sorts of topics that ought not require a public records request to find out about, given that they involve public employees, public property and public money?

A woman called today to suggest that we should not have referred to this child as a "kid" as we do in the fourth paragraph.

"You should have put it in quotes or changed it to 'the child,'" she said. "The colloquialism 'the kid' is just not appropriate."

I had a boss who insisted the same thing, although he wasn't as polite as the caller. He would ask, "Are you calling that child a baby goat, because that's what a kid is."

"In your world, perhaps," I once replied, "but to the rest of us on Planet Earth, a kid is an adolescent child."

The look I got in return inspired me to change it to "child" and not do that again.

Until now.

We spent more time making sure this photo wasn't too revealing than it deserved. But we know our readers. At 6 columns wide and 7 inches deep on the front of the Life section, we knew we needed to be careful.

A message from the department's administrative assistant: Subscriber called in to say she really enjoyed the article on WF coach but was very upset and disappointed of the picture on D1 -- in very poor taste.

As features editor Susan Ladd said, it wouldn't be Greensboro without at least one such complaint.

I know that you have some ideas about what newspapers should be; you tell me pretty often. Now here's your chance to make some money off them.

The Southern Newspaper Publishers Association is seeking the best and the brightest take on what "newspapers" will look like in 10 years. We're looking for revolutionary inventions that connect and engage readers by redefining how news is presented.

Start with a blank slate, a white sheet of paper, or a dark computer screen, and go from there. Anyone can enter. The cash prize for the winning entry is $2,000. Deadline for entries is September 15, 2007.

(Thanks for the link, Lex.)

We're making some changes in our reporting assignments that serve a variety of purposes, including giving beats a different look and giving reporters the opportunity to do something new. Readers don't notice bylines -- although you can't convince writers of that -- so you'll probably not notice anything except, I believe, new energy in the report.

The assignments:
* Education reporter Jennifer Fernandez to courts
* Nightside reporter Joe Killian to High Point
* General assignment reporter Sonja Elmquist to crime
* Crime reporter Eric Townsend to city hall
* City Hall reporter Margaret Banks to government/politics general assignment
* Records reporter Ryan Seals to nightside
* General assignment reporter Lex Alexander to health/medicine

MiniMediaGuy, a.k.a. Tom Abate, addresses a subject dear to my heart: Boringly written news stories.

The lesson of the last two decades has been that these institutions which house journalism have bored their audiences into ignoring the very issues that exercise the muscles of democracy.

We journalists may not be able to stem the flow of traditional advertisers from the newspaper. We may not be able to deliver the newspaper before 4:30 a.m. when some people -- heaven help them -- want it. We may not be able to master the MoJo's job of handling video, still, cell, ink, paper and driving. But we can do one thing.

We can stop writing news in boring ways. We know that people are as interested in news as they've ever been. The challenge is to write it so compellingly that people want to read our take. Going beyond the mundane and writing with flair takes both time and talent. When deadlines essentially occur every moment, reporters and editors face a choice of balancing two very basic instincts: getting the information out there as quickly as possible, and taking the time to report, think and write longer. The answer to that equation is what we, and every other newspaper, need to find. Unfortunately, we've made it harder by reducing the staff. Less time and less talent. We're trying to reduce time spent on work with a low return so we can invest more time on those stories that make a difference. And write them better.

And who knows, the current adversity may be just the shock journalists need to rediscover what drew their audiences in the first place -- the people who invented this craft a century ago delivered stuff that made people's eyes pop, not roll.

And there are other ways of grabbing the audience's attention.

Peder Zane at The N&O makes a valiant attempt to explain why the news media focus on what I call the superficial in presidential campaigns: John Edwards' hair, Clinton's cleavage, Thompson's younger wife, Giuliani in drag. Harrumphers who blame the media for these personal stories are shooting the messengers. The media are not creating the demand; they are satisfying it. People want to feel a connection with the candidate whose mug they'll have to look at constantly for four to eight years.

He says Edwards haircuts fuel suspicions that he may have more style than substance. The dresses Giuliani donned for the 1997 comic skits symbolize the issue of whether this pro-choice New Yorker might be out of step with traditional Republican voters. Fred Thompson's much younger wife -- he's 64, she's 40 -- raises questions about his commitment to family values. John McCain's sweater suggests that the man who once drove the Straight Talk Express may be letting consultants call the shots as he tries to revive his campaign. And Hillary Clinton's cleavage reminds us of the challenges she faces as she tries to become America's first woman president.

That's a mouthful of justifications that probably should have remained in his computer. Thompson's young wife raises questions about his family values? Does anyone who is going to vote not understand that a woman faces challenges in the campaign? A politician listening to a consultant? Why, what's next?

A newspaper doesn't need to run a single story about any of those topics, except Edwards' $400 haircut. Readers wouldn't miss anything. They wouldn't be any less informed. In fact, they wouldn't draw irrelevant and, perhaps, incorrect conclusions from the sweater or the wife choices. No, newspapers write about these things because they can, because they are titillating, because they'll get talked about.

There's nothing wrong with those reasons. I don't even mind those types of stories. But don't try to pass off the infatuation with them as being based on intense reader interest or as having a serious political purpose. People seem to want "to feel a connection" with Paris Hilton and high-speed car chases, but that doesn't mean we publish even more stories about her or send helicopters into the air.

A Greensboro City Council candidate takes us to task today for, I think, not giving each one of the nearly three dozen candidates equal time during the filing period.

The fact is, we're keeping our powder dry. It's a long way til the primary in October, and we're well aware that voters are about as engaged in a municipal election right now as they are in buying a Christmas tree. They may deny it, but you know it's true.

We plan a large newspaper and Web presence with outbound links, candidate Q. & A.s, profiles and video, among other things. That takes a bit of time and, while the candidates may want to get their names out there right now, voters aren't ready for it.

During the filing period, we wrote about the more interesting developments. Robbie Perkins wanting to get back into city politics. Mary Rakestraw and Trudy Wade making a move for a different board. Dianne Bellamy-Small because, well, you know. We did not write big stories on several incumbents who filed, for instance, because there wasn't much news to it.

All candidates will get a shot to tell their story, both in the paper and on our site. It’s just early yet.