News-Record.com

Remember the days when Greensboro had a common vision for the future? When we pulled together for the common good? When we trusted our leadership to do the right thing and, even when we disagreed, we respected the integrity of the thought process?

Nah, I don't either.

Has the city been more divided than it is now? There are at least two different realities working on the police department. The school board and the county commissioners continue their squabbling that has gone on for years. There's a strong undercurrent of distrust with city government.

Greensboro as a hotbed of divisiveness and skepticism is nothing new. A study by the Community Foundation in 2001 determined that the city's citizens had a low level of trust in community institutions. And thanks to the slow-moving, low boil of the police investigation, among other things, it's gotten worse, in my opinion.

But let's look forward. How do we focus on what's ahead? How do we put behind us decisions that have already been made, in some cases years ago? How do we heal Greensboro?

We're going to pursue the thesis that the people, collectively, can pull it together and develop a common vision that moves them -- us -- positively into the future. As part of that, we would like to tap into the collective wisdom of the crowd. We aren't interested in reliving how we got to this point except as it may provide direction of the future. We also aren't interested in assigning blame for the past, including a review of the media, which, I know, is putting restrictions on some of you.

We are interested in taking your direction. What do you think would heal Greensboro? How does the process begin? What does the leadership look like? Is this the next project for Action Greensboro and the foundations? Is it a job for City Council or perhaps something coming through the leadership of the colleges and universities? Some other entity? Or perhaps it is a lot of small, independent projects that simply need aggregation? Lots of possibilities; what do you think?

The election may clarify direction, but I doubt it. Greensboro voters aren't known for sending a united message during off-year elections (although we, the media, try to find one every two years). Besides, how much of a message can it be when only a quarter or so of eligible voters cast a ballot? Anyway, we won't publish before the election.

What better way to welcome ConvergeSouth 2007 but a citizen-directed discussion on the blogs about making the city a better place to live? Help us out.

A truck that's too tall attempts to drive under a bridge that's too low and gets stuck. Happens all the time around here, especially at the railroad overpass near Natty Greene's. Or here, as Amy Dominello noted yesterday. We don't do much with them because they occur so frequently, but clearly, the wisdom of the crowd tells us we're wrong.

Amy's story and photo were linked on Fark yesterday afternoon at 5:42. So far, the link has sent us some 39,000 referrals.

Don't leave the Fark link without reading some of the gazillion comments. Who knew there was so much little to say about a truck snagged by an overpass?

There are many lessons to be learned from the GPD investigation by city leadership, the media and the citizenry. Here's one that I hope city leaders and the City Council learn: Release everything you have sooner rather than later. Last night's belated release of more city documents gives citizens more information to make their own judgments about what happened and what should have happened.

Unfortunately, it's about 20 months late.

I understand the restrictions placed by personnel laws. I also understand what lawyers can do in courtrooms. But here we are, now, with lawsuits flying, accusations about dirty cops and a citizenry distrustful of its police department and its city leadership. Would the release of all the information that's come out in the past month have prevented the turmoil since the police chief resigned early last year? Would it have stopped The Rhino series at, say, a dozen installments rather than 1,000 and counting?

Who knows, but my guess is that the atmosphere in Greensboro surrounding civic engagement and citizen trust would be much healthier.

Today's Sports front article on how high schools choose homecoming opponents is fascinating. It not only confirmed what I had always thought -- that many schools purposely schedule homecoming when they are hosting an easy opponent -- it indicated that the players of the anticipated patsy get inspired by the disrespect.

And then there's the matter of the indignity of waiting through the extra long halftime crowning of the opposition's homecoming court.

Not everyone was as fascinated as I. One faculty member at Northwest wrote:

It is a travesty that this article and picture appeared in this context. We, along with Smith and Atkins, have a lot of outstanding kids who work very hard every day, overcoming the negative people (like your staff) and perceptions (News and Record) every day that they are faced with. Imagine being a player on any of these teams this morning and picking up the newspaper, excited about the game tonight and the ensuing Friday high school newspaper coverage, and yet the entire region reads and visualizes about the perceived weakness of your team. What you may think is good, thought provoking journalism and art have damaged the self esteem of a group of high school kids, who also have to walk in the halls with their peers and hear constant negative comments as well has having to answer to comments about the article and picture.

I expect that the teams at Northwest, Smith, and Atkins can use this as motivation, however these kids prove to our communities on a daily basis that they are indeed not weak and feeble like they have been depicted in the News and Record. These kids are all winners, regardless of how your paper decides to depict them or what the score at the end of the game is. We who work with these fine young men every day know this. I invite all of you to come to any of these schools and see how outstanding these kids are, and what character and determination they display on a daily basis.

I'm not a proponent of snarkiness in the paper. It is a cheap laugh and the laugh is rarely worth the hurt it causes. But this wasn't a snarky story. It was a straight-on depiction of what seems to be a truism in high school. And one that everyone seems to know exists. (For the record, I'm pretty sure we didn't depict the students as weak and feeble, or make any comment about their character or determination. I have no doubt that they are all fine young men.)

Joe Sirera, our sports editor, explained the thinking in his response:

As we were looking at homecoming games, we noticed that a few schools seemed to be the homecoming opponent for an inordinate number of other schools. We then looked at the records of the frequent homecoming opponents and it became obvious why these schools, including Northwest Guilford, were scheduled for homecoming: They lose their games much more frequently than they win.

The coaches at the two Guilford County schools cited in the article (Smith and Northwest) were told what the subject of the article would be and chose to speak to Robert Bell. (Coach Woodruff spoke at great length about the strategy of scheduling an opponent perceived to be weak as a homecoming foe. "Anyone who tells you they don't go looking for a team to beat up on is lying," he said.) That was their decision. A Smith player, who also was told what the article would be about, spoke to Robert and was quoted in the story as saying that being a homecoming opponent provided motivation and helped him play better. It also was noted that Northwest defeated a very strong Mount Tabor team, 21-20, last Friday to send a message that the Vikings were nobody's "patsy," as it were.

Truth be told, I hope Northwest plasters East Forsyth and Smith smacks around Page tonight.

In tomorrow's wonderful story about High Point Mayor Becky Smothers and her fight against cancer, we mention a letter she wrote in the High Point Enterprise announcing her condition. Rather than say something strange such as "a High Point newspaper," we named the paper. Sounds obvious. right? For years, newspapers wouldn't name competitors even when the reference was clear. Why give competitors a free plug went the argument. Why treat readers as if they are stupid, I say.

Our desire for opacity rather than transparency seems so silly sometimes.

Speaking out of the other side of my mouth:

In that story, Smothers said that at one point she was "scared shitless." As far as profanity is concerned, we don't permit it unless a source says it and it is vital to the understanding of the story or the speaker. The typical "hell" and "damn" will generally be printed. Everything else has a high bar to justify printing in a family newspaper. Editors argued to include the quote because it showed the level of her fear and emotion.

I said no because I respect the level of prudishness of some of our readers. I didn't think the quote was compelling enough to risk offending people who prefer their news profanity free. Using the curse word didn't add to my understanding of her fear or of her battle. In fact, the way it was said, it almost sounded as if its usage is every day, but maybe that's because it is in a newsroom. In the end, it seemed to give readers a reason to stop reading, and why would we do that?

Anyway, I approved the lame use of hyphens as in "scared ----less."

Update: After further discussion today, we changed it to a simple paraphrase.

Acknowledged, our desire for opacity rather than transparency seems so silly sometimes.

But read the story. It's a good one. And don't miss the multi-mmedia.

Monday update. Then there's this. (Via Romenesko).

My newspaper column

As you've certainly noticed by now, we have added some new features to the Sunday paper.

You also may have noticed the story we published two weeks ago that the newspaper was picketed by about 50 N.C. A&T students who didn't like what we had reported about the state university's recent audit.

You probably didn't notice an article at Entrepreneur.com in which newspapers are listed as facing extinction by 2017, joining record stores, pay phones and gay bars, among others.

I'm happy to tell you that's not going to happen, and the Sunday newspaper and the picketers are illustrations of why.

William Safire, On Language in the New York Times Magazine yesterday:

Question: Should writers show off their erudition by deliberately using unfamiliar words on occasion? My view: Most of the time, plain words communicate best, but every now and then — when dealing with an inquisitive audience -- it doesn't hurt to stretch the readership's vocabulary.

My view: No, they shouldn't. Do we care about a writer's erudition? Not me. I care about their knowledge and authority on the topic, but not their dictionary-like vocabulary. And while I keep a dictionary close by when I write to make sure I choose the correct word, I don't really want to consult a dictionary when I read the paper.

Not to cause another eruption of the "dumbing down" discussion, but there is at least one paper trying to write on a third-grade level. I think we have an inquisitive audience, but inquisitive about information, not vocabulary building.

Should I let people who put their money where their mouth is influence my vote? Of course not! Am I interested in who gave what to which candidates? Oh yeah. Will it influence my selection when I see who acquaintances Doug Galyon, Don Brady, John Bakane, Bob Braswell, Marc Bush and Badi Ali contributed money to? I dunno.

But it's interesting.

Early voting is over. Primary day tomorrow. More election info here and here.

Business reporter Michelle Jarboe is heading to the Cleveland Plain Dealer to cover real estate. She's increasing the potential readership of her work by about 8-fold in circulation and moving much closer to home so I can't begrudge her.

Michelle came to us two years ago from UNC. She's played a prominent role in our coverage of the big business stories over that period including breaking Friday's story of the Friendly Center contract. She's also been an online champion.

Dang. And I had just gotten her to get a new photo for her Savvy Shopper column, a photo that would replace this one. Like, I've never seen her wear glasses. I guess we won't use it now.

Her boss, John Nagy, said, "She is possessed with deep passion and professionalism for the job. It is no surprise that a paper steeped in a tradition of rich and well-regarded business coverage sought her out."

Indeed, we'll miss both her work and her presence in our newsroom.

Listen to Mary Rakestraw campaign and explain her position on Mitchell Johnson. Read about turnout. Get expert advice about avoiding the "crowds."

Check it all out on the live Election Blog. And then go vote.

My friend and colleague Andy Bechtel at UNC says that Blogs need editing, too. The rush to have newspaper reporters write blogs has not been followed by a rush of copy editors to polish those blogs. It shows. Glitches of all types abound, with posts showing little or no evidence of editing.

He then reprints five sentences in blogs that have grammatical errors in them. They could have come from our blogs, for all I know. I have been known to abuse proper grammar and mangle common spellings. Commenters have been quick to point out the mistakes, too. I'd like to be flawless, but I'm not.

Still, with all of our copy editors tsking at me in the background, I must disagree with Andy.

Every journalist group I've spoken with about blogging has stopped short when I say we don't edit our staff blogs. The editors are more concerned about libel than about the proper use of it's and its. But editing is editing. No good copy editor would stop at editing only for typos and grammar. He or she would edit for style, for content, for libel and for usage. So....

Here's why staff blogs need not be edited:
* Editing slows the process. If part of a good blog post is timeliness, then finding someone to edit it obstructs speed, spontaneity and "striking while the iron is hot." (Yes, I know a good copy editor would tell me to avoid the cliche.)
* Editing promotes uniformity and conformity. Unlike blogs, newspapers have traditionally been built around an institutional voice. The best blogs have a unique voice, the voice of the blogger. Almost by definition, editing would quiet that.
* Trust your staff. Journalists know what libel is, what bad taste is. Trust them to get it right. We tell them, "When in doubt, get someone to read behind you." Yes, we make mistakes in usage, but the point of the post is rarely obscured by the error. And, as previously mentioned, commenters rush to make the correction. Writers are also more careful when they know they are operating without a copy editor's net.
* The cultures of the Web and the newspaper are different. My flip comment is that there are 1,000 retired English teachers scouting for errors in the paper for every one reading the blog. My serious comment is that newspaper readers expect we adhere to the accepted style manuals. Newspapers are used in schools. We're supposed to be right. I know. I get letters every month from readers questioning our grammatical choices. Online, much much less. Or is that fewer?

This shouldn't be interpreted as a slap at copy editing. Copy editing is vital. Without question, a copy editor would have improved the flow of this post. We would copy edit everything intensely if we could afford to. (We could build in ways to avoid the issues pointed out in above bullets.) But it adds to the workload of an already stretched staff. And it isn't necessary.

Now, I have to go out and take my beating at the hands of our staff.

** Correct the grammatical and spelling errors in this post in the comments.

This advertising spot for the Sunday newspaper will run for several weeks on broadcast and cable. See it here first.

We don't do much television advertising. It's expensive to produce and expensive to buy. (This doesn't count.) And we do own an advertising machine. But we want to reach a group of people who aren't regular newspaper readers with the message that they ought to try the paper. Its emphasis is on the value of the paper, but we don't leave the Web site out. Personally, I like the image of using the paper to make a hat, which is an underappreciated attribute.

I'm not in it, by the way, although many N&R folks are. (No dogs were harmed in the making of this ad.)

Update: The link is fixed.

When only 7% of eligible voters bother to go to the polls is that a fair approximation of readership interest in the election? And if it is, should our coverage efforts reflect that intense indifference?

We have spent a great deal of staff time over the last 8 weeks reporting on the candidates, holding Town Hall meetings, getting out information about campaigns and endorsing candidates. We plan to spend even more between now and the general election in November. But why should we if such a small percentage of the market seems to care?

Covering politics, elections and City Council has long been at the core of what newspapers do. But should it be? When so much else about reader wants and needs are changing -- and voter turnout has been declining for years -- why shouldn't our coverage respond appropriately? Local television seems to have made this decision already.

These are rhetorical questions for us now. We don't intend to scale back. Regardless of whether eligible voters want to participate in the process, the makeup of City Council is too important to the future of Greensboro. And if you believe that "the primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing," then doing what we can to provide that information begins with local municipal election coverage.

For weeks now, I've thought we were facing a serious water crisis, thanks to the drought we're in.

But how serious it can be when the golf course has its high-powered sprinklers pumping city water onto all 18 holes?

From Jason Hardin's story tomorrow here:

Allan Williams, head of the city's water resources department, said there are reasons to treat fields and golf courses differently -- for now.

Keeping playing fields in good shape for children to play on isn't the same thing as maintaining a lawn for looks. And golf courses have a huge investment tied up in the grass on their greens, he said.

I hear that. And last week, I heard discussions speculating about when the city would run out of water. February was the consensus, I think. Of course, it was just speculation by the deejays on a pop station, but still, I suspect some listeners believed it.

I know that golf courses and football fields are under water restrictions, too. But I can understand why some people will resist conservation until the burden is shared more equally.

My newspaper column

In the future, news will come to you any way, anywhere and any time you wish. In fact, people like you will become news centers, telling stories with words, photographs and videos online.

The cost will be almost nothing. All you will have to do is learn how.

How do I know? Because it is already happening.

Welcome to ConvergeSouth 2007, an online creativity conference at N.C. A&T Friday and Saturday. The goal is to help people understand and use digital media.

It is a glimpse into the future, and it is free.

Some predictable reaction to the Point-Counterpoint on the Carolina vs. Carolina duel that we published on the front page Saturday.

I asked the writers what response they got from their columns. Our USC grad, Jeri Rowe, reports:

1. My next-door neighbor bangs on my window during the first part of the game and gave me major grief.

2. Same goes for my other neighbor. I ran out to the car to grab something during a commercial break during the last five minutes of the game, and I heard "Go Tar Heels'' from his front porch.

3. The funniest, though, was at Bestway. I got to get hotdogs to grill out during halftime, and Mark -- a guy who works there -- turns to me and said, "I don't really like what you wrote this morning.'' Then, we had a discussion about James Dickey and the lack of football tradition at UNC.

As for UNC grad Eddie Wooten, he got this e-mail: "Dude, lay off the crystal meth.... It can do bad things to you. Oh and by the way 21-15."

Eddie also reports: One person at church said, "First, I have to say I liked your column. Second, it didn't belong on the front page of the newspaper."

Got one e-mail, from an ECU fan who was very nice and reminded me of a '70s bumper sticker: There's only one Carolina, and that's East Carolina. He was nice.

The best thing is that everything that was true on Saturday morning, before we lost, is still true this morning. Nothing changed.

Spoken like a true Heel.

We received this e-mail today:

Sadly, when reading the paper yesterday and today I find myself guilty of ignorance. I'm one of the ninety-three percent in Greensboro that didn't get out to vote at the primary. I should be better aware of our elections being held and when they occur yet I find myself struggling. I do not know where I can find the information which tells me.

Do you have any suggestions on where I might go to get the facts on our local elections? Is there such a source? (Links added.)

One of our readers wants us to fire Ed Hardin. Well, scratch that. As many years as Ed has been writing a sports column, I'd wager that there are more than one. Let me start over.

We published a letter from Amy Mannix today that trashed Ed Hardin for his story Sunday about hunting. And it took some shots at hunters, too: Society now knows that the relatively few die-hards clinging to their weapons like babies to their blankies are over-compensating, personifying the statement of psychiatrist Maurice Linden that "these men become over-attached to these guns, which become the external embodiment of the vigor and masculine aggressiveness they lack in themselves."

Phew. I know some hunters pretty well, and Dr. Linden's description doesn't fit with my sense of them. But what do I know? I'm no shrink.

She ends her letter saying that if Ed won't stop writing about hunting, we should "ditch him." We're not going to do that. We have readers who hunt. I think we have a lot of readers who hunt, actually. Writing about topics like this, particularly with the sort of perspective Ed did on Sunday, is part of what columnists do. Deciding that stories about hunting -- a legal and regulated activity -- should be banned from our pages because it "is a dying blood sport" isn't what newspapers do.

For the record, we did hear from others with the same opinion Ms. Mannix had. And we also heard from some who wanted more coverage on the front page on the Panthers, the Bobcats game, the upsets of LSU and Cal, and the baseball playoffs. (In addition to Ed's column, the page features the Carolina-South Carolina game, the Lowe's NASCAR race, and a scoreboard that included the Bobcats game, the LSU game, the Cal game and the A&T game.)

Sports readers are the most intensely passionate readers of any paper.

More thoughts at Greensboro Sports. (Guys, we're encouraging Ed to write about topics that aren't discussed to death on talk radio and ESPN.)

The News & Record won the Media Award for excellence in reporting mental health issues from the Mental Health Association of North Carolina. It was recognition of the work done by Amy Dominello, Jeri Rowe, Jason Hardin, Eric Townsend and Allen Johnson.

This is the second consecutive year the paper has won.

During the monthly staff meeting today, a reporter asked me about the future of printed newspapers. I gave some sort of rambling answer that wasn't satisfactory. I've always said that it's the journalism that matters, not whether it comes on processed wood pulp or pixels or sound waves. I worry about the future of print in that it is our dominant revenue source right now, but I'm confident that we're growing digital $$ in the meantime. There are a lot of bright people out there working on business models that will keep journalism principles alive and healthy.

But anyway, now, I can be specific and quote a futurist when I answer that question.

From Brian Cubbison:

Futurist and columnist Richard Watson has written a book called "Future Files: A History of the Next 50 Years" .

They will disappear about the same time Google does, but will outlive petrol-engined vehicles, free roads, national currencies, the European Union, Microsoft, the middle class, spam and Rocky films.

Of course, also in about the same time frame, he predicts Cher will be gone...as will futurists.

Meanwhile, the World Association of Newspapers asked 22 experts what the newspaper would look like in 2020.

Two excerpts:

Juan Antonio Giner: Innovation believes in the future of newspapers, but the newspapers of the future will be very different, better and more profitable than ever if they embrace change and innovation without losing the core and soul of our business: journalism.

Rob Curley: Newspapers are going to survive. Will we be doing things the way we’ve always done them? Absolutely not. In the United States, there are two types of newspaper publishers -- those who think the most important part of the word newspaper is 'news' and those who think the most important part of that word is 'paper.' ... We can't be afraid of reaching our audience in new ways. It will be one of the keys to our industry’s successful future.

I think print newspaper reading is generational. As long as boomers are such a driving force in society, newspapers will be fine. But there's no question that digital journalism is the future. And we're working on developing our skills there.

Beau Dure used to work at this newspaper back in the '90s, but I know him better through his comments on this blog than I did when he was here. He's smart and insightful as he shows in these comments reproduced at Journalism Hope. With that intro, you probably aren't surprised that I agree with him.

The bottom line: Newspapers could have done everything "right" -- all the suggestions from this list, minus the things never caught on -- and still found themselves in the situation they're in today. The marketplace is fragmenting. Prime-time network TV is losing viewers. Tower Records is gone. Forty years ago, everyone could name a Beatles song; today, most people don't know any of the songs in the Top 10. We simply have too many options....

As the market fragments, traditional newspapers will decline....But there will be opportunities for good journalism....

So we've established niche media while transforming traditional media - perhaps more slowly than intended -- into something new. We've learned a lot along the way from both successes and failures, both small and spectacular.

Despite what you may read on journalism sites and blogs, many of us do understand the market we're in and the skills we need. Our challenge is to move more quickly understand where the audience is, where it is going and how to serve it.

He mentions his experiences and observations commenting on this blog.

I'm as much a fan of the blogging experiments in Greensboro as the next Online-Newser - probably moreso, since I spent four terrific years at the N&R. But judging from the agenda-driven comments on John Robinson's blog, my old editor in Wilmington probably got better feedback in the steam room at the Y than John is getting online.

I don't know about the feedback at the Y -- my experience is that a pretty good place to talk to the audience -- but he has a point about some comments here. Some do go to all the same places -- usually trashing the paper for one sin or another. Really, it's not all that different from conversations I have with people on the street. The criticism in person is usually more polite, but it can also be equally blunt and mean-spirited.

Other conversations are quite robust, helpful and stimulating -- both in person and on the blog. And they make it worth it.

Not a week goes by when someone doesn't accuse us of "trying to sell newspapers." As if that's a bad thing.

When we published a photograph on the Sports front of a security officer spraying mace into a crowd of fighting N.C. A&T and Central football players. When we wrote about a former private school teacher being charged with having sex with a student. When we publish a photo of a homeless African boy sniffing glue on World Poverty Day. When we publish virtually any story about Americans dying in the Middle East.

People refer to "selling newspapers" with disgust, as if we're not supposed to want people to buy our paper.

It is time to drive a stake through the heart of this cliche. It may have been relevant back in the day of Pulitzer and Hearst, but those days of yellow journalism are pretty much gone from traditional newspapers, having moved other places.

Single copy sales are driven by two things: What prospective buyers can see above the fold on the front page; and coverage of some event that they already know will be in the paper, such as a story about their favorite sports team. Oh, wait. Three things. When we cut the price of the single copy paper, people buy because they can't resist a bargain.

What sells and what doesn't?

* Disasters -- the geographically closer to the Triad the better -- sell papers. Government scandals don't.

* Sensational stories involving sex, murder and/or celebrities sells papers. Think Britney, Lohan, OJ, Phil Spector. Tough to play up as we don't have that many local celebrities doing scandalous things. Chris Daughtry is still here; Fantasia fled to Charlotte and Broadway.

* Intensely local community news -- read about someone you know --- sells papers. International news doesn't.

* Carolina winning sells papers. State and ECU winning doesn’t (here, at least). Don't shoot the messenger, all you ABC (Anybody But Carolina) fans. It is what it is.

* Advertising -- the Toys R Us Christmas catalogue! -- sells papers.

Actually, if we were just "trying to sell newspapers," we wouldn't write about the candidates for city council. We wouldn't write about the latest proposal to fund a new Eastern High School. We probably wouldn't write about the drought, unless it was to reveal the names and addresses of the water scofflaws. Most serious policy issues aren't big drivers of newspaper sales. We write them because they are important for the community to know about.

With the decline of mass media and the rise of individual media, "sensationalizing" the news has less and less effect in selling newspapers. People can go online for news of disasters, of celebrity scandal, and, to some extent, for intensely local news. Expect that to spread and deepen. Perhaps that contributes to the reputation that newspapers are boring: Too much government stuff, not enough sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

We want to sell newspapers by publishing unique stories and photos that matter and will help improve the community. Some days we're better at it than others, but the value of the information will always trump the sensational.

Personally, I want to sell newspapers. Giving readers information they can use is why I got into journalism. (Well, that and because it's fun.) Besides, people who buy the paper keep us in business.

Online News Squared links to Tim Rickard's Brewster Rockit with a I-wish-I-had-thought-of-that-line line.

Tim also maintains The Joke's on You.

Ruthell Howard, who worked as a copy editor here in the late 80s, died Sunday of cardiopulmonary arrest.

She left us in 1990 to work on the copy desk of the Washington Post.

I didn't know Ruthell well -- I think she worked with Allen at the Winston-Salem Chronicle -- but I remember her as a tenacious copy editor and a gentle soul.

The Post's obituary confirms that: In the sometimes-anonymous copy desk position, which requires mediation between strong-willed reporters attached to their words and readers who demand accuracy, clarity and context, she was known as a polite but meticulous editor, her colleagues said.

Update: Allen's remembrance.

What a week! First, Dumbledore is determined to be gay. Then, Jim Neal, a Senatorial candidate, confirms he is gay. Now, today, we publish a story about Bob Page, a recipient of this year's NCCJ Brotherhood Citation award, on the front page. Page is gay and has been out of the closet for years.

I guess sometimes it gets to be too much. One caller, who identified himself as Carl, let us know that he would no longer read the paper. He said, in so many words, that we shouldn't promote the homosexual lifestyle by writing about it without the appropriate condemnation.

When we wrote about Bob Page and his partner adopting a child in 2000 we were showered with cancellations. Not so much with today's story. Maybe times are changing. Then again, maybe we've already lost the readers who might complain along those lines. (We also got some positive comments in 2000.)

Anyway, I suspect that publishing stories like this is a reason some people consider us "liberal." If so, I plead guilty.

Every journalist I know is a gossip. We might not call ourselves gossips, but that's one of the things we do. Every good journalist I know is also curious. Curious about all sorts of topics -- what they're working on and what everyone else is working on. Every good journalist wants to ask that one additional question and possibly get that special piece of information that will make his story better.

That's why I like Ryan Sholin's ReportingOn idea.

In short, ReportingOn.com would be a social network for reporters looking for others on the same beat (in different towns).

Make it easy for everyone reporting on "sea lions" to find each other, perhaps as part of a larger group of people reporting on "science."

One more thing: Every good journalist I know is always looking for the next good story idea. This coudl be a place they can find it. We aren't above theft.

Ryan also links to a Facebook group on the idea.

I've been thinking about this half-baked report from Forbes that lists journalist as one of the 21st century's worst jobs.

Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, where the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will always need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5 percent in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets.

What a crock. What a misunderstanding of what compels a journalist to be a journalist.

Aside from the fact that it seems to define journalists as one who works at newspapers, it sweeps aside the possibility that many of us will find a decent living online. Even after our layoffs, virtually everyone involved have new jobs in journalism and we're hiring again.

More important, the report ignores the two reasons that everyone I've ever met in print journalism got into the business: they love the work and they want to change the world. I've been in newspapers for 30 years, and the pay has always been lousy to mediocre, the hours long and the pressures intense. No one gets into it to get rich. It's tough on the home life. You're on call 24/7. Does it have to be that way? No, and when I win the Powerball and start a news company, I will change it, but meanwhile, it is what it is. Still....

You get into it to do something different and exciting every day, to meet fascinating people and to write about intriguing things, and to make a difference by telling people things that are important. It's a damned exciting way to make a living.

It's not easy. Sources lie to you straight-faced, bigwigs demand your head, editors like me want more -- more copy, more sources, more hours, more innovation, more learning. Other fields want your skills. The ability to quickly synthesize information and to write it clearly is coveted in the business world. Some journalists graduate into other fields and are happy there.

Yet many don't. Paul Conley explains why better than I.

When the investors cut your pay, when the investors show contempt for your ethics, the only reason to stay in B2B media is because you love this game. Only love will give you the strength to fight the good fights and to quit when your boss crosses the line. When new competitors emerge and your core publications begin to lose money, only love will give you the strength to work harder and smarter and build something new you can be proud of.

Well, we're behind Raleigh again! A report from Scarborough Research about the percentage of people who read or contribute to blogs puts Greensboro at 7% behind Raleigh's 8% but well ahead of Charlotte's 5%. Worse, we're a notch behind the national average of 8%.

Austin, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle are at the top with 13%-15%. The top cities for bloggers have tech savvy and youth in common.

Demographically, bloggers are young and hail from middle class families. They are 66 percent more likely than the national average to be between the ages of 18 and 34. Fifty percent of bloggers are part of a household that has children under 17, as opposed to 41 percent of the total population. Bloggers are 20 percent more likely than the national average to have an annual household income between $50k and $100k per year.

I dunno. Maybe not young, but certainly middle class. With ConvergeSouth, perhaps we've moved into into a more expansive realm of digital use, in which blogging is simply one tool among many.

My daughter the younger just asked me if Stephen Colbert's presidential run is serious. This is a child who has been online since she was 10, who reads newspapers only when she's bored, watches TV news less often than that and who seems to know everything about whatever she's interested in, and is now a freshman at UNC.

Of course she knows who Colbert is. She's a bit unsure about who Romney and Thompson are, though. This is also a child of civically engaged parents she saw read the paper every morning and talk politics often.

The Pew Survey described this group early this year: They are somewhat more interested in keeping up with politics and national affairs than were young people a generation ago. Still, only a third say they follow what's going on in government and public affairs "most of the time."

My answer? "Yeah. Absolutely. But I think Jon Stewart is a better candidate."

Monday update: Here's why she asked.

Cedric Bryant is interviewed by Bryan Murley at Innovation in College Media about what students need to get hired. Cedric, who is in charge of recruiting at Gannett, attended A&T and started here as a reporter. More, in writing, when he had hair.

Cedric is a good man. I knew he was a recruiter -- and I'm sure he's good at it -- but I always thought it was a bit of a loss because he was a fine reporter and a splendid writer.

Katie Reetz, award-winning feature writer, video star, and journalistic troublemaker, has resigned to work for Elon University as assistant director for admissions communications. (With all due respect to Elon, we don't have any real desire to be a feeder paper.)

Katie came to us straight out of UGa. two and a half years ago and has done fine work. Part of her job will be to begin the school's efforts to reach students digitally with podcasts, Web casts, blogs, etc. I'd like to think we helped prepare her. We'll miss her.

I voted early so this won't help me, but it may interest you. Here the video debate between mayoral candidates Yvonne Johnson and Milton Kern. (Sorry, Billy.) Moderators are Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson and Government Editor Eddie Wooten.

Fair warning: It's 35 minutes long; they are politicians, after all.

Update: We've broken it down by question so it's more manageable.

Two stories:

My friend Sam Zealy was killed last week in a traffic accident. I got a phone call about it late Thursday night from a friend of the family. We had a story about the accident online late Thursday and it was updated first thing Friday, but we didn't include his name either time because police had not released it.

Victims of the Ocean Isle fire tragedy are identified in today's story from The State newspaper. The State didn't get the information from the police, who hadn't released it. The paper credited "other officials, family members, friends and other sources."

Why identify one set of victims and not the other? The Ocean Isle fire has gotten national media coverage since it happened Sunday morning. There is intense public interest. Because the victims were identified only as attending South Carolina and Clemson, tens of thousands of people -- students, friends, parents, other relatives, alums -- were left wondering, who? The paper could answer that for those of us who didn't check Facebook and MySpace.

Sam's death, while tragic, was smaller in scope. The old-fashioned grapevine moved quickly. My guess is that lots of people knew Friday morning. I don't know why the police hesitated in releasing his name -- his family certainly knew -- but out of respect and caution, we waited, too. There didn't seem to be a public hunger for the identification.

But I could be wrong about that. Consistency in policy is something I like. It makes decisions easier, and it sets forth clarity when others are deliberating. This isn't consistency. On the other hand, it's a judgment call, which I also like.

Want to help clarify?

Nate DeGraff, our reporter keeping a watchful eye over county government, has resigned to go to work in marketing and media relations in the engineering school at N.C. State. (State! He's a Guilford and UNC grad.) Nate has been here for three and a half years, much of it covering the county. He is a regular Scoop contributor, of course, and he's done good work covering the exploits of Skip, Billy and Steve.

I'm hoping that the old saw, "Bad things happen in threes," is true and it stops here.