News-Record.com

A reader called today to give us grief us grief for the photos about gang tags that ran on our editorial page today. She thought we were promoting tagging in the sense that gang members would be motivated to paint gang symbols more often if they thought their work would be published.

I bring that up because one reason we don't write much about April Fool's pranks is for the same reason: they may reinforce the prankster and give them credit when they deserve, well, none. Riding to work this morning, I listened to one radio show doing an interview with a government official that sounded legitimate until you thought about the premise for about two seconds and remembered what day it is.

We aren't alone in our fuddyduddiness. Is that a sign of good sense or paternalistic news judgment? Wouldn't writing about the goofy pranks lend a bit of desperately needed humor to the paper? Or would it contribute to the "dumbing down" sentiment people sometimes have?

We don't pull the April Fool's wool over our readers' eyes with our own pranks because we don't want to contribute to the confusion. Besides, we've found it is hard to commit humor in the newspaper. The comics page is proof of that. (That's a little joke.) We aren't alone, either.

Of course, it could also be that most of the April Fool's pranks are not all that interesting or newsworthy. A good, public one -- say, getting a news release published that said President Bush endorsed Kay Hagan over Elizabeth Dole or that Terry Grier had changed his mind about leaving -- now that would be a different story.

Tim Thornton, a former higher education reporter here and now at the Roanoke Times, won the Phillip D. Reed Memorial Award for Outstanding Writing on the Southern Environment from the Southern Environmental Law Center for his series about mountaintop removal coal mining, "Moving the Mountains."

Tim's series was an in-depth investigation into the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining in Southwest Virginia. Janisse Ray, a Reed judge, says: "This is a thorough investigation into the greatest tragedy of the American landscape today. I read it greedily, filled with equal parts of bottomless sadness and amazement at the people who, despite the odds, have found the courage and enlightenment to fight it. Very impressive."

Thanks for the tip, Jeri.

For Tar Heel junkies, we have gathered our season's worth of UNC coverage in one place, beginning with a nice sights-and-sounds slideshow of the Eastern Regionals. (All the photo galleries are there, too.)

Just to get you ready for Saturday night.

I didn't get my first reporting job because I wasn't tech savvy enough. This was back in the 70s and it meant that I wasn't a fast enough typist. True story.

Laugh if you must, but the same holds true today, only the technology has changed.

That's what I told Ryan Thornburg's brown-bag lunch gathering at UNC today. The more students learn blogging, Twitter, social networking, beat blogging, video, programming and the like, the better prepared they'll be to be on the front end of "if the news is important, it will find me" rather than choking on the dust trying to catch up.

When I ask job candidates if they do any of those things and they give me a befuddled look, that tells me something about them.

I don't want to be the smartest one in the room. (I know; no problem there.) I'm more impressed when someone discovers a useful new tool and adapts it to his/her work or tries to. If, say, a job candidate shows me the value of Twitter as a reporting tool, they have a leg up. It tells me that they're keeping up with what's happening in the field.

Innovation is more effective when it comes bottom up than top down.

I may be wrong, but it strikes me that the articles that appear in nearly every newspaper every day that describe a particular day's stock-market movements are pretty much worthless.

That's from a post at Freakonomics yesterday.

Howard Weaver piles on a bit: I think the honest answer is that collective ignorance about markets and economics leads the press to a herd mentality in which we all just repeat what a handful of business writers tell us.

I've thought the same thing recently as I've watched the talking heads at ESPN and CBS talk about the NCAA tournament. Three weeks ago they said (as did we) that we shouldn't count on all four No. 1 seeds making the Final Four because it's never happened. So what do we have? We heard that Carolina's weakness is defense. Hmmm, not the games I've watched. And the chances anyone gave Davidson? Ha!

You can add your own examples of "expert commentary."

OK, it's not exactly the same because one involves "explanations" for an occurrence and the other involves predictions of behavior. Still, there is a feel of herd mentality and worthlessness to both.

Beginning in 2005, I was getting a lot of speaking invitations to newspapers, conferences and journalism classes to talk about digital journalism. By far the two most frequently asked questions were:

* How do you find the time?
* Do you pay extra for blogging/video/filing online updates?

Speaking to students Thursday, I realized that the questions are different. I can't remember the last time I was asked either of those questions. I'm interpreting that as meaning that journalists finally understand that their jobs have changed.

On Friday, I was interviewed by a journalism student working for ASNE Reporter, the newspaper that will cover the upcoming American Society of Newspaper Editors' convention in Washington. His story assignment: Will newspapers survive? What can be done to save them?

This assignment saddened me. Are we really still asking that question?

Yes, newspapers will survive, although not flourish or endure. I'm thinking that newspapers are good until the baby boomers start dying out in 30 years. I base this on Phil Meyer's generational research. Who knows what they'll be like, but it's safe to say that papers will be smaller, more focused and more niched. And many of them won't publish every day. Some options here.

But these are really the wrong questions, I told him. (Even though they are being discussed elsewhere by people smarter than I.) The more interesting question the editors should be thinking about is whether and how professional journalism will survive and flourish.

I'm think it will. Part of that is my heart talking, I admit. But I believe it with my head, too. Our challenge is to make sure that what create has value and that we can get it before the eyeballs of those who value it. And there are a lot of innovators working on that.

James Maroney, publisher of the Dallas Morning News: If you are I the newspaper business, you are in the business of managing decline. If you are in the news and information business, then you have a healthy future.

The news business is undergoing a transformation that's occurring faster than many of us thought. Our mistake is thinking of it as a threat rather than as the greatest opportunity journalism has ever had. There will be a living there if we can figure out how to be the discoverers.

Fortunately, the ASNE conference schedule seems to focus on change and digital journalism. Not that I'm going to be there.

When I was here doing this, I said this.

I got a frantic voice-mail Saturday from someone at the New York Post asking to speak to the entertainment reporter covering the Jay-Z's "Heart of the City" tour with Mary J. Blige at the Coliseum that night. I wasn't there and got the message too late. We didn't staff the concert, either, darn it.

Turns out we missed a big story.

Here's the report from TMZ: Mary J. Blige basically just blabbed to a sold-out crowd of thousands in North Carolina that Jay-Z and Beyonce Knowles got married, by congratulating "my man Jay-Z" and "my girl B" and dedicating a song to them. The couple haven't officially acknowledged their nups.

Jigga teased the masses with a couple notes from "Crazy in Love," his duet with B, but didn't say anything about the wedding.

This is a better version, but whenever I can refer to Jay-Z as "Jigga" without sounding like an idiot, I want to do it.

Beyonce's photo at the airport here.

I actually knew Jay-Z was here; I just hadn't tuned into the reports that he might have secretly gotten married to Beyonce the day before so I didn't put the two together. In retrospect, I'd have rather been at the concert than doing what I was doing.

Wednesday update: The AP posts this video report raising a question about the nuptials, but the only support is a comment from alleged wedding guest Gwyneth Paltrow saying she doesn't know what anyone is talking about in that way that you might deny knowing anything, wink, wink.

For a time, Andy Griffith references in North Carolina newspapers were gold. Longtime columnist Jim Jenkins used to make them in these pages all the time. Still does elsewhere.

So you'd expect attention when we start a story this way:

Goober Pyle might've had some advice for the job.

A pair of century-old cars in the Greensboro Historical Museum recently were torn down to go into new exhibits.

Salisbury engineer Mike Greene moved them piece by piece. That's similar to what mechanic Goober did in a 1965 episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" when he rebuilt a car in the courthouse and gave Sheriff Taylor a fit.

Readers have questioned our use of Goober's character. That is, his very existence.

They think that we're confused -- that the only Pyle on the show was named Gomer.

Gerald said: "I'm guessing this is only a question because Gomer Pyle later had his own show. Goober was mostly called just Goober on the show, so many folks forgot that they share a same last name. And that they're cousins."

Gerald, by the way, had not been born when Goober made his last appearance in 1968. But his editor, Eddie Wooten, an Andy aficionado, was. And thanks to the wonders of reruns and TV Land....

More on Goober's 86 episodes here.

Some 70 percent of editors surveyed said requiring commenters to disclose their identities would support good journalism, while only 45 percent of the public did. Similarly, 58 percent of editors said letting journalists join online conversations and give personal views would harm journalism, but only 36 percent of the public agreed.

The comes from the AP story about the latest survey comparing journalists' and readers' views of the Web. Almost predictably, the coverage of it makes journalists look silly. (Insert my known skepticism about the value of polls and surveys here.)

Aside from the fact that we are silly, there is some interesting stuff in it if you actually read the survey or, as I did, the executive summary. Journalists and Web readers are in step on many, many issues.

Cutting to the chase on this one. My feelings on anonymous comments are out there: Don't like 'em; will take 'em.

The second piece of the above survey result about journalists "joining the conversation online and giving personal views" is trickier because it is two questions in one: join the conversation and give personal views. And that queers the interpretation of the response.

Question 1: Journalists must join in the conversation with readers. It's no longer an option; it's part of the job. Readers are the people journalists are trying to serve. And we don't want staff members to engage with them? Of course, we do. It's about transparency, clarity and having civilized discussion about ideas. It's what people do. It's what journalists do. Conversation improves credibility, in real life and online.

Question 2: Journalists can comfortably give their personal views about topics on which they are knowledgeable. That said, I do have qualms about reporters giving an opinion on an issue they are writing about. Say City Council is deliberating over whether to reopen White Street Landfill. Should the City Hall reporter weigh in with her opinion? I'd say no. I think she can provide additional information and insight in her comments. She can "set the record straight" for other commenters if someone posts an inaccuracy. She can answer questions. But, honestly, who cares what she thinks about reopening the landfill?

The talking heads on television, I think, skew the public's perception of journalists. The fact is, in most cases, reporters I know rarely have opinions about what they write, either because they can see all the gray or they don't feel strongly one way or the other.

My favorite comment from the story about the survey:

The study was designed to help gauge the priorities and practices newspapers should be establishing as they increasingly blend their print and Web operations. It produced few answers on how editors can meet reader expectations online without compromising credibility.

If I read the last sentence correctly, it says that editors must compromise credibility to meet reader expectations. That's not the way I read the results of the survey, and it's not my perception on how journalists serve the public.

Update: In the comments, Michelle McClellan says what I wish I had said: As long as journalists think they have to sacrifice credibility to meet reader expectations, they will not embrace abundant opportunities to do both.

Teenagers may not read newspapers so much, but they're still interested in them.

Yesterday, we held the interviews for our annual Scholastic Achievement program, in which we give college scholarships to outstanding high school seniors. One of the judges was Vickie Kilimanjaro, co-publisher of the Carolina Peacemaker.

We interviewed 12 students and gave each an opportunity to ask questions of the selection team. Four students did, and three of those asked Kilimanjaro about the experience of working for the paper. They seemed truly curious. (Of course, these are the public school system's best and brightest.)

It affirms Tim McGuire's thinking: There is a remarkable loyalty to the IDEA of newspapers despite the fact that many, if not most, of my students are not regular newspaper readers.

As part of our bicentennial coverage, we have digitized some of the more historically significant papers in our archives.

News librarian Diane Lamb explains:

This assignment was like going into a candy story that has all your favorites but you are told you can choose only 2 pieces.

Stay tuned -- we hope to scan more of our historical microfilm in the future.

We have looked into digitizing the total archives. Way too expensive...now.

It is interesting to wander around in these editions, looking at how news judgment, design and advertising styles have changed over the years.

Possibly contrary to expectations, I applaud the Greensboro Police Department's news release about the arrest of 78-year-old Alexander Kohanowich.

(Our coverage of the arrest is here and here.)

For a department that is hardly forthcoming with information about its operations and motivations, this news release is revealing and, generally speaking, helpful. It could have been more helpful by explaining what "shoving" meant to Officer Prescod, by explaining what "placed Mr. Kohanowich on the ground" meant to the officer, and by identifying the other police officer involved, but I'll take openness even if the door is not wide open.

I hope the department's motivation in releasing information is not found in this sentence from the release: In several significant respects, the published account which has led to criticism of the Greensboro Police Department -- is not supported by witness interviews. I hope the department simply wanted to be as transparent as possible to the citizens it serves and protects.

Now, how about some information on the other high profile assault case that's been pending since December?

University of Cal.-Irvine study: Most participants considered reading blogs a form of "chilling out" or "wasting time."

And the participants weren't journalists!

Ted Gup bemoans the disengagement of college students with current events in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Nearly half of a recent class could not name a single country that bordered Israel. In an introductory journalism class, 11 of 18 students could not name what country Kabul was in, although we have been at war there for half a decade. Last fall only one in 21 students could name the U.S. secretary of defense. Given a list of four countries -- China, Cuba, India, and Japan -- not one of those same 21 students could identify India and Japan as democracies. Their grasp of history was little better. The question of when the Civil War was fought invited an array of responses -- half a dozen were off by a decade or more. Some students thought that Islam was the principal religion of South America, that Roe v. Wade was about slavery, that 50 justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, that the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1975.

He adds:

It is not easy to explain how we got into this sad state, or to separate symptoms from causes. Newspaper readership is in steep decline. My students simply do not read newspapers, online or otherwise, and many grew up in households that did not subscribe to a paper.

An oldtimer complaining about "these kids today?" I asked some journalism instructors who work here or used to work here for their observations.

Former managing editor Ned Cline: Sadly, based on my experiences in the classroom, today's students seldom if ever read newspapers. A few look a topics of interest on internet, but my classroom discussions indicate they do not follow local newspapers beyond what is required in class, even then begrudgingly and only enough to get by. Every week, I ask for news since last class and they seldom know beyond sports (males) or some rock star dying. And these are students with an interest in journalism (in theory). It is not a pleasant thought or much hope for future of newsrooms.

Editorial page editor Allen Johnson: I keep them honest with current events pop quizzes. I also require them to learn the names of local and state elected officials. Otherwise they are blissfully unaware of even the biggest national stories. However, once we get them engaged they seem to become more interested, and even thoughtful, in discussing the issues.

I believe them and sympathize with their frustration as teachers. But I'm struggling with the idea that this is something worth wringing my hands over. Or that it is a new phenomenon.

When I was in college in the early 70s, I read newspapers in the college library primarily to pass the time between classes and to procrastinate doing real work. I followed Watergate, but not the Middle East. I followed the Patty Hearst kidnapping and Jeffrey MacDonald case, but not the oil embargo or the SALT agreement.

So, really, tabloid crime, but not anything actually important. (Well, there was that Watergate caper. I guess that turned out to be important, but it was tabloid drama, too.) I can't imagine that I or any of my friends would have passed any of Allen's tests without studying. It wasn't until I began working for a newspaper that I tuned into the world beyond my own neighborhood of interests.

Fast forward to today. We don't hire many journalists straight out of college, but the ones we do either are tuned in, or more important, know how to get up to speed quickly. And that, I think, is the key.

Back in the day, if you wanted information, you went to the newspaper or weekly magazines, selected from one, two or three television stations, or buried yourself in back issues and Reader's Guides at the library. Now, information is available everywhere at anytime. There is no real need to constantly keep up, outside of personal interest, when you can catch up at a moment's notice. I have observed it in my own college-age children.

I think the problem is ours, not theirs. The sooner we understand the "news will find me" generation, the better.

My newspaper column

On July 20, 1909, one of the headlines on the front page of the Greensboro Daily News was: "Milk and water proper drinks for children; Educational department issues bulletin for use in schools; intoxicants and tobacco are poison to them."

Before you roll your eyes, remember this: it took 56 more years before the legislators required the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packs.

The headline across the top of the Greensboro Record on April 3, 1936, was "Storm death toll reaches 12; more than 100 suffer injuries in catastrophes." A powerful tornado devastated downtown the night before.

On Feb. 2, 1960, there are 18 stories that started on the Record's front page. None of them referred to one of the most famous acts in Greensboro history: the sit-ins at the local Woolworth's. That story appeared on the front page of the second section.

I know that spammers don't care who gets their spew so long as a fraction of losers people respond. Some professional PR folks seem to feel the same way.

I get a fair collection of both run-of-the-mill spam and PR spam every day. I distinguish between the two this way:

* ROM Spam -- The same junk everyone gets. Subject line: Can you make these commercial closings? and Insurance agent closers needed!! Two exclamation points!! It's important!! (Our spam filters apparently weed out the mail about Russian brides, although I do get the occasional Nigerian money transfer scam.)
* PR spam -- Please publish me in the paper or the Web site. Subject line: News from Pitt -- Dan Marino commencement speaker and Reminder: Start planning your Earth Day coverage now! and Creative Hong Kong in London.

They both take me about the same amount of time to hit delete.

Do news organizations exist that actually use the releases? Even the University of Pittsburgh item had no relevance to anyone around here except, perhaps, parents of Pitt seniors and I doubt there are many of those.

I know it doesn't cost the PR spammers anything to include me on their list, but it's so ineffective. I hope they're doing something else to earn their money.

Every year, ASNE surveys its members on the race and gender of newsroom employees and publishes the results. The results haven't made us proud recently, either in total numbers of journalists or increased diversity of newsrooms.

Alan Mutter calls it "a confounding statistical mélange of apples, bananas and bowling bowls." Gotta love that image.

I would go even further. It's a waste of time and a false indicator of the industry's health. And it is yet another morale downer.

National numbers don't mean anything. The numbers that are important are local. How many journalists are in the newsroom of your hometown paper? How many of them are women? Men? African American? Asian? Hispanic? American Indian? (Those are the categories on the survey. I know because I took it.) As it happens, the N&R has a higher percentage of minority journalists (15%) than the national average (13.5%). Makes it sound as if we're ahead of the curve....except that we're less than halfway to mirroring the percentage of minorities in Guilford County, our core market area.

Does it help me as an editor to know the national numbers? No. Its original goal may have been worthy, but we need to try something else.

While I'm here, some questions not asked on the employment census: How many newsroom staffers are digitally proficient? How many are paid what they deserve? How many would it kill you if they left the paper? How many would you hire if you had it to do over? How many would work elsewhere if they had the chance?

Now that is a census that would tell you something.

The Society of Professional Journalists is conducting a Citizen Journalism Academy June 7 at at Guilford College's Frank Family Science Center. This looks like a good deal -- a lot of valuable learning.

From the release:

Among the topics this daylong workshop will explore:

* Journalism ethics. The new-media landscape is rife with dilemmas for anyone wanting to report accurately, fairly and outside the bounds of special interests.

* The basics of media law. The same longstanding laws concerning libel, slander and access to people and information apply to 21st-century news-gatherers.

* Access to pubic records and meetings. Public information can add substance and value to every news story. But knowing where to look for it can be tough.

* Standard and responsible reporting practices. With media ethics and law in mind, how else should news-gatherers approach sources.

* Tips on smart writing. SPJ instructors want to help ensure your voice is clearly understood.

* The use of technology. We'll show you an array of tools you could start using -- or continue using even more effectively.

The cost to attend the Citizen Journalism Academy is $25, which includes lunch and course materials. For more information about this program or to register, visit SPJ's Citizen Journalism Academy page. Please note, the registration deadline is May 24 and seating is limited.

When the various markets tumble as they've been doing lately, we often get calls from real estate agents concerned about housing market, politicians concerned about joblessness and members of the public concerned about the overall business climate. Their issue is that stories about the depressed economy are a self-fulfilling prophecy, scaring consumers who then won't spend.

Chris Roush at UNC and Talking Biz News points to some valuable information from Andrew Leckey, director of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University.

"Even though more depressing words have been written in the blogosphere, on other online sites and in print than were written in the Depression, it isn't changing the course of economic events.

“"Journalists don't make recessions," Leckey said.

We presented our in-house journalism awards -- the Landmark Awards -- today. These awards are based on a person's body of work for 2007. Clearly tough judging all the way down the line in intensely competitive categories. If I were more committed I would insert links to all the stories and headlines referenced below, but, well, there you go...

(My editors don't like me to post these because it tells journalistic poachers who to go after. So, to throw them a bone, the winners are on the jump.)

Ann Morris, who has been managing editor here since 2003, is leaving us.

It pains me just to write that sentence.

Right now, she's going to enjoy spending the summer with her two daughters and doing volunteer work. Eventually, she plans to rejoin the official workforce, perhaps in a community service role.

It's a tough loss for us because Ann has been deeply involved in all the important moves we've made over the past five years, including redesigning the paper, revamping Sunday, creating more digital elements, and conceiving and editing much of the compelling journalism we've produced. She has also recruited some of the best young journalists around. Her decisions made the paper better every day.

It's a tough loss for me personally because she has been a valued counselor and mentor to me. I admire her for making the decision she did; I know how much she loves journalism. After all, she has spent most of her career as a journalist, including 12 years here as a reporter, editorial writer and editor.

But I also know how challenging it is to raise two pre-teen daughters. Ann is working on the right things.

I've always thought that the managing editor's job is a meat grinder. Responsible for the daily operations of the paper, daily operations that span from 8 a.m. to past midnight seven days a week without break. Pressure from people like me on items big and small. Pressure from reporters and other editors on everything else. While all the time listening to and responding to readers.

She handled it all seamlessly.

As for her future, she will make a huge contribution wherever she lands. Any organization would be lucky to have her. And I'm crossing my fingers she'll come back here.

A friend expressed disappointment that I did not attend the Gene Roberts speech at the Friends of the Library event at UNCG last week. My response surprised and, I suspect, disappointed him even more: "I have heard enough retired editors talk about the good old days and how we should fix newspapers to last a lifetime."

I meant no disrespect to Roberts, one of the three or four most significant newspaper editors of the past 50 years. He has one heckuva story and deserves all the honors he gets. He was here to talk about his book with Hank Klibanoff, The Race Beat, which I have read and admire. Not only are there good journalism stories in it, but there are good hero stories in it. But I read and talk with retired editors and reporters who describe the solution to newspaper problems as a return to the good old days when the daily paper was the only game in town.

Isn't it pretty to think so?

From what I hear, Roberts also bemoaned the contraction of newsrooms and of international reporting. I agree. How can you not? Doubling the size of reporting staffs would certainly serve the community. The more journalists reporting the good, the bad and the ugly, the better.

But those are the effects of problems facing newspapers not the cause. While good journalism has not changed markedly since the 1990s, technology has. So has the audience. So have people's habits. Not addressing those changes in discussions about journalism and newspapers is like talking about television as if there were still only three channels.

Those changes:
* the economic distress faced by traditional newspaper advertisers such as department stores
* the loss of classifieds revenues
* the splintering of the attentions and interests of the audience
* the ability to get news and information from thousands of other places and in dozens of other ways
* the sluggishness with which newspapers have anticipated the future (now present) and the sluggishness of their response

These won't be fixed by reducing the profit margin or going back to the journalistic world of the 1980s and 90s. They will be addressed by innovation, peering around corners and going to where the people are. And producing great journalism.

Steve Yelvington uses a telling, humbling anecdote from a trip to Thailand to make the same point: We can sit and bemoan the passing of the era of the great metropolitan newspaper or we can choose to look for ways to invent the future. I think journalism will be changed, but it's going to survive.

I would go further. By inventing the future, journalism will be stronger. It just won't be entirely in newspaper form.

Sunday update: Related from Doug Fisher.

Our team in the Reading Connections Scrabble Challenge faced off against a team of WFMY folk. Our group was nervously confident. They were veterans of the challenge; Dawn Kane, Romy McGinnis and Marie Inkenbrandt had been there before.

We won the first game, but lost the second when the FMY team bought a lifeline, a roaming expert who looked at their tiles and made a suggestion using all the letters. Paliest.

Paliest? Means most pale, at least to the 17 people in the world who know the word. Normal people would say palest.

The FMYers got 80-some points on that one, which pushed them over the top. Congratulations to both teams.

Remember, it was a fundraiser.

At what point does covering the presidential candidates' visits become repetitive? How many times does Hillary come into the region before her visit doesn't make big news? Or, better still, how many times do Bill or Chelsea campaign here before they assume the mantle of "routine?" (Both are coming to N.C. again this week.)

We did not write a news story about Hillary's second visit to Winston-Salem Friday, although we have video of her appearance. For the paper, we opted instead for Columnist Lorraine Ahearn's take on Sunday.

Of course, we covered both Clinton(s) and Obama when they came to the region the first time a few weeks ago. And it is a wonderful thing for civic engagement for presidential candidates to care so deeply about North Carolina (democratic) voters for the first time in many seasons.

But unless the candidates come into the counties where we sell papers we are probably going to let the AP send us reports. Yes, we miss the possibility of some gaff. Yes, we miss something amiss occurring. Yes, we miss the possibility, however slim, slight and non-existent, that the candidate may make news.

But we can use our reporters for other stories, and the AP does send reports of the candidates' visits.

Is it wrong? Should we sent a reporter and photographer if Obama or Clinton skip Greensboro but return to Winston or, say, Durham?

Our friends at Greensboro Sports didn't like the beer company ad on our high school sports site. I wrote that sentence in the past tense because we removed the ad from the site.

The post -- "N&R selling beer to high schoolers?" -- says that we shouldn't market beer to high school students. Fair enough. The ad rotated through a number of our pages, and it was easy enough to rejigger to skip the high school page.

I wonder, though, about the responsibility any Web site has to police its advertising based on morality and expected page viewership. I don't know what would happen to televised sports -- watched, I presume, by a lot of people under 21 -- if they could not advertise beer. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a beer company ad on a Web page would be a contributor to underage drinking, given the saturation marketing beer companies do elsewhere.

But I do understand the point. In the paper, we try to not run strip gentlemen club ads on the high school page. I guess beer company ads, like those Joe Camel one's, fall into the same category.

I'm probably more ambivalent about it than I should be, but it all feels a little politically correct to me.

A reporter who doesn't make many errors sent me a news story about mistakes and brain function. She knows that I make more mindless goofs than normal. And I don't even hold that against her.

According to the story in the Times, some scientists used an MRI tool to see what is happening in the brain when a mistake is made. Cutting to the chase:

As he and his colleagues report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, no single "blip" or event signals an error. Rather, brain patterns start to change about 30 seconds before an error is committed.

All very interesting. Unfortunately, as the reporter pointed out, the story doesn't tell us how to avoid the careless mistakes. But at least we can explain to readers that the right frontal lobe just became less active.

I never read much Arthur C. Clarke that I can recall. Heinlein and Dick were more my style when it came to science fiction. That said, Adrian Monck snags a great piece of the past with his salvaging of this from Liz Donovan.

From 2001: A Space Odyssey: An astronaut reads the news:

...he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.

...Each (headline) had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort.

That was published 40 years ago. Happy Birthday!

These are the sorts of references -- and there are plenty of them -- that make me think we need to hire a science fiction writer to help us understand and plan for the future. I know that Orson Scott Card doesn't think much of us, but that's probably a good thing in this case. It would help us think broadly and grandly. I wonder if he's available....

When Meredith Barkley was a reporter here, he was one of the more vocal conservatives in the newsroom. (Yes, I know it goes against the conventional perception of newspaper staffs.)

So some of us were surprised to see him in this new Hillary Clinton ad. (He is in the blue pinstriped shirt beside David.)

Love conquers all, even politics. Meredith explains: My wife is a big Hillary supporter. She was invited to meet with her in W-S last week and ask her a question. I figured I'd just sit back and watch it all and maybe get to meet a presidential candidate. But heck, first thing I knew I was in an ad!

Which media bigshot would you least like to be this week?

Katie Couric -- facing low ratings, a vote of confidence, and calls for her to move along
Mort Zuckerman of the NY Daily News -- hemmed in by Rupert Murdoch's latest newspaper gambit
Gary Pruitt of McClatchy -- saying his company isn't going bankrupt
Wall Street Journal editor -- facing a change in the paper. Oops, he's already gone

Editor's note: Last week was swept by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson.

So last week we asked our Reader Panel this question: Do you think the News & Record covers politics in a fair manner?

You'll enjoy the results: Of the 128 people who responded, 82 answered yes, 28 said no and 18 qualified their answers in a variety of ways.

Now, if that doesn't make you want to join the Reader Panel, I don't know what will. Sign up and have your say about our news coverage. It will help us improve.

Those results are true, by the way. But as I said before, the sample is too small to draw many conclusions from. Still.

Some of the comments, presented in a fair and balanced way:

I think the paper tries to be objective and doesn't have a pronounced bias either liberal or conservative. I only wish the letter writers could be as calm and intelligent. The paper does a very good job, good paper for this size market.
..........

Tends to empahsize stories with a liberal agenda without examining both sides of an issue. Not quite as bad as the NY Times, but far from "balanced reporting."
..........

No! I have never thought the paper was objective. The editorials are fairly balanced between left and right but the local opinions are not. I must admit that most newspapers have a left lean which is sad and not objective reporting. Sorry!
..........

I do. All of us have inherent biases that are difficult to overcome. But on balance, the N&R seeks to be fair.
..........

Absolutely not. The bias toward the Democrat Party (it is Democrat not Democratic as the article states) is blatantly obvious. Get a few conservatives to write for your paper and maybe more people will read it with more interest.
..........

Yes -- the GOP can't help that they are stupid people.

We knew the letter from the chairman of TIMCO was a big news story. It is not often you get one company publicly accusing the other of pirating employees and threatening legal action. At least not here.

But I didn't realize it would evoke such involved, generally intelligent discussion as it has at Debatables. Thirty comments and counting.

It becomes my latest prime example of why newspapers should enable comments on its stories. Passionate discussion among readers on a topic of intense interest. Some leads for us to follow. Maybe some understanding arising from disagreement.

Because our publishing system makes commenting on stories difficult, we created Debatables. We're in the midst of moving to Drupal, with the ability to enable comments directly on stories. Finally.

One of the common complaints about newspaper-based Web sites goes something like this: "You don't publish anonymous letters in the newspaper so why do you permit anonymous comments on the Web site." I don't like anonymous comments, either, but they fit with the culture of the Web. The comments on the TIMCO story demonstrate another good reason to permit them.

Would any of the commenters write a letter to the editor with their names? We'll see. I doubt we'll get as many as have joined the conversation. Some seem to have much to add and a good reason to hide their identity.

The world is changing.

My newspaper column

"Who are you going to vote for?" is almost as common a question in my household as "What's for dinner?"

With the May 6 primary looming, it is a darned good question. Not only are dozens of presidential, state and local candidates vying for your attention, but Guilford County voters must decide whether to approve a total of $671.6 million in bonds.

It can be a daunting, frustrating time for even the most engaged citizen.

Tom Keller, our new high school sports reporter has started big with today's basketball special and a new blog called the Locker Room about -- what else? -- high school sports.

He interviews his toughest critic in his first post. And then shoots some video of last weekend's basketball showcase for his second.

Pay a visit.

I just received an e-mailed news release from a Raleigh group called Action for Children North Carolina about its new report on corporal punishment. A few minutes before that I got a news release on the local winners of the National Merit $2,500 scholarship winners.

Today is Monday; both releases are embargoed until Wednesday.

Normally when information with strings attached is exchanged, both sides agree to the strings. Given that I did not agree to embargo the information from National Merit or Action for Children -- both releases were sent unsolicited -- am I bound to honor the embargoes?

We don't care for embargoes, although we agree to them on occasion. They rarely help us or, more important, our readers.

But the tradition, I think, is to adhere to the requested embargo date, although I can't think of a good reason why. Now, with publishing in the hands of many, rather than few, isn't it time for this practice to go away?

In one way this a dark day in media.

* Newspaper circulation, generally speaking, continues to decline.
* The News & Observer is offering voluntary buyouts to about 25% of its employees.
* The Wall Street Journal continues its shift from national business paper to national paper.
* Another newspaper, The Capital Times in Madison, Wisc., closes its 6-day-a-week print edition. (Saturday, actually.)

I suppose industry evolution sometimes looks that way.

Yet, it's also a day of hope, as The Capital Times goes online. Not to those in Madison who were laid off, of course, but to the rest of us ink-stained wretches interested in the future of journalism. It will be a tough evolution -- and it will have to make adjustments faster than we normally think of evolution. Competition is stiff, niches are nearly filled, the marketplace is unforgiving and readers are saturated with information. (That is best described by Jay Rosen.) But it could well become a laboratory for journalistic innovation. Newspapers still developing a Web presence -- and who isn't -- will be watching.

It is a grand and noble strategy to continue to bring its voice and values to the Madison community. I hope it works.

In January, reporter Lex Alexander wrote about his nascent efforts to figure out how to use the principles, practices and tools of social networking to improve covering a topic area. He's been plugging away at that at the same time he's been sizing up the issues and complexities of the health and medical beat.

He writes about his progress with beat blogging.

We aren't one of the 13 official news organizations involved in this effort put together by Jay Rosen and NewAssignment.Net. But we said last year we were going to watch it, learn from it and give it a shot. Thanks to David Cohn for his help, and kudos to Lex for taking the ball and running downfield, even if we're not sure where the goal line is.

And we're open to ideas and suggestions from you.

Mark Binker gets his hand slapped by Clinton press folks for acting like a citizen of the United States -- going to the Clinton fund-raiser along with 700 people yesterday and then writing about it.

I have resisted, until now, pointing out the fact that there were 700 people in that venue, 95 percent of who were toting cell phones with cameras and recorders, a bunch with personal cameras and all, I would think, with decent enough memories to relate the event to friends and neighbors. So since everyone invited to the event was potentially a reporter, that "closed press" thing seemed pretty laughable.

I think it has been suggested before that the Clintons are working under a 20th century media mentality which is no longer operable in the age of citizen journalism. Yesterday was an up-close taste of that.

Yet more evidence that putting much stock in political polls is wasted effort. I don't have a clue why any media organization would publish the results prominently, much less pay to conduct them.

My longtime friend and colleague Owen Davis is retiring in July. Owen, who is our sports copy desk chief, has only been with us for two years, but I've known him since the early 80s when we worked together at the N&O. In between the N&O and us, Owen was at the Detroit Free Press, where he spent 20 years as deputy sports editor.

He moved here to be closer to family and we knew we wouldn't have him a long time, but he's been a pivotal player while here.