Otterblog

You know times have changed when ... Wake Forest football is the subject of national rumor mills. That’s the situation with Coach Jim Grobe, and the intense speculation (is there any other kind?) that he may or may not be interested in the top job at Nebraska, which I suppose is to college football what Lexington is to barbecue. We were engaged in some very spirited discussions about how to cover this story. Coaching searches are maddening affairs. There are leaks. Well-intended but misinformed speculation, etc. etc. And sometimes the news is that there isn’t any news. Don’t know Grobe. People say he’s a nice guy. Certainly a good coach. He’s smart enough, too, to not close the door on anyone. So it’s not that he’s encouraging the rumors, so much as he’s not very effective at publicly squelching them. The continuous news cycle has also fed this beast. ESPN, message boards, blogs, etc. etc. Everybody has space to fill, air time to fill. In the old days, rumors had less places to land. News or the lack of it was more effectively controlled. That’s all changed. The result is that newspapers—in addition to all our other responsibilities—are the place to go to make sense of the rumors, things we might have ignored in a more gentlemanly time.

The state of journalism. Matt Taibbi and Ben Bradlee are from very different points on the news spectrum. They both have some interesting things to say about how we are doing and where we are going, particularly as it related to political journalism.
Here’s Taibbi, the political reporter for Rolling Stone. Here’s Bradlee, the former editor of the Washington Post. A note to young OTTERBLOG readers. Their comments are PG-13.

Finally, worth reading. BusinessWeek has a really well-done story on economic development in Africa and what it means to some of the world’s poorest people and the rich people here and elsewhere who rely on Africa’s resources for our daily conveniences.

Back from some R&R. I hope you all had a nice T-day, Black Friday, Cyber Monday etc. etc. ...

One of the amazing things about journalism and the new world order is how stories get picked up and repackaged for different audiences, often outside the control of the creators, and how information flows and finds its own level.

Two quick examples. First, last week, during one of the most bizarre news weeks leading up to the Feast of the Turkey, we ran a story about a dowry dispute involving an Indian woman who was injuried in a car wreck in Yadkin County and originally taken to WFUBMC. It has been a major story in the Indian press, and our inboxes were flooded with folks offering up their real and imagined expertise on all things dowry-related.

Second was our exclusive on RJR deciding to drop its print advertising—at least for a year. We pursued and reported this piece as a straightforward cost/benefit business piece, but it has been picked up in the fashion press, playing off the whole Camel No. 9 deal.

If you go to that Jezebel site, click on the other big smoking news there, showing Amy Winehouse picking up a smoke off the street.

One last post before rambling off into drumstick heaven…

As most of you know, we’ve been doing an audition of sorts the past few months for a comic strip to replace Kudzu, after the death of Doug Marlette. Here’s a piece from The Wall Street Journal about the comics business that speaks to many of the issues we’ve been dealing with. And as a reminder, you can post your comments about our tryouts here..

Have a safe, festive and restful Thanksgiving…

speech.com.doc

Yesterday, we were hosts to a group of journalists visiting from the UK. They were in town to look at our editorial system, which is called Content Watch, as a replacement for their current system. CW is what we use to manage files through the production process. They work for a company called Trinity Mirror plc, which is the largest publisher of newspapers in the England, Scotland and Wales. Their titles include regional papers in Birmingham and Wales and the national paper, the Mirror, which has a circulation of well over 1 million, is their flagship paper.

The Mirror’s history is part of the very fabric of journalism. It was the first tabloid newspaper, for many years was the best-selling newspaper in England, and then was taken down by Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. and the Sun. Now it’s one of several tabloids jostling for space and market identity on the newsstands. Wikipedia has a reasonably cogent summation of the Mirror and its ups and downs.

In my conversations with these folks, it’s clear the British journalism is a lot different than that practiced in the U.S. They’re much racier, and celebrity-focused, and because British consumers tend to be single-copy buyers rather than subscribers, they have to make their bones every day. That said, we face a lot of the same issues—the value of print in a digital world, a changed workforce with neither the time or inclination to read, the eternal search for what readers want: today, tomorrow or the next.

This past Sunday, I gave a talk to a group called “The Tankers,” which as I understand it, is a collection of retired and semi-retired university types and assorted friends who are interested in public affairs. They had asked me to come talk about politics and the media. I’ve attached a copy of the speech in a pre-delivery shape. They were a good group that asked a lot of pointed but reasonable questions.

hauser.jpg

I don’t know how many of you saw the obituary story that ran the other day on C.B. Hauser. He was a remarkable man, one whose life journey was both a mirror and a metaphor of how far we’ve come and how far we have to go.

In researching that story, one of our editors came across a photograph of the story in the Mount Airy News on Hauser’s arrest in 1947 for failing to yield his seat while on a bus. I’ve attached the photo here. It’s a little tough to read, but it’s an incredible glimpse into our past. Hauser is referred to as an “educated negro,” and it’s not clear whether that adjective is used to assert that he a) ought to know better or b) ought to be given more privileges than “uneducated” Negros.

As a journalist, when I look at these stories from the past, I often ask myself “What would I have done.” Injustice is injustice, but journalistic detachment often competes with journalistic compassion for the underdog. I do think that this article was an important piece of journalism, because writing about it—even in the stilted manner in which it was done—showed the ridiculousness of the Jim Crow laws. To report is to acknowledge, and acknowledgement is along the path to respect.

Separately, a quick plug for a pair of fellow bloggers. Our StyleFile blog, which is all about fashion and such, is back on the Web after a shoe closet full of technical problems. Its hosts are Stephanie Stallings and Jeri Young. I told them they should rename it the OTTERCLOG. But they declined. Check it out.

One of the ongoing debates we have in our newsroom is about the use of wire copy, i.e. stories written by journalists elsewhere that we run on our news and feature pages. Some examples: Two stories this past weekend about cremations in Western North Carolina (They’re up) and whether Asheville’s luxury housing market is saturated (maybe); and a Washington Post piece today about Kukuwa, an African-inspired exercise dance that is sweeping the DC area. As a box on the jump noted, Kukuwa hasn’t quite shaken its boombsey in Winston-Salem, although there are similar workouts available.

I thought all these stories were interesting, but I also understand a bit of the disconnect. I read the cremations story and wondered if that’s happening in W-S (it is). It’s like writing about cooking with an ingredient that isn’t available at any of our local stores, or reviewing a movie that isn’t opening in the Triad for months, etc. What’s the connection between the story and the reader?

This is not an attempt to rationalize or justify the use of non-staff copy by any means, but I do think that one of the things that newspapers can do well is to educate people about the world beyond their berm. People don’t just wake up one day and decide they want to do Kukuwa or faux finish their basement walls or what have you. They have to learn about it somewhere, and they they act on their education. And for my money, I’d rather they learn about it in the Journal, regardless of whether the piece is written by a staffer or from a journalist at another paper.

Just a few words here about Norman Mailer, who died this past weekend. In one sense, he was a person who lived too long, who became a caricature of himself in the end, the novelist/writer as celebrity.
It’s important to look past Mailer’s ego and later-year eccentricities to focus on his work. The Executioner’s Song, written in 1979, is one of the best nonfiction books in the past 50 years. I haven’t read it in a while, but may have to reread. It is a powerful story about Gary Gilmore and the nature of crime and punishment.

We’ve had some strong comments on the previous post about how much description to use in describing a suspect. There’s a parallel discussion going on about our story today on the couple found dead in their home in northern Davidson County.

The sheriff hadn’t released the IDs of the couple because he said not all the next-of-kin had been notified. But we published the names. As one emailer wrote (and I’m not cleaning up the typos ...)

In todays paper the part about couple found dead at davidson home, you say you are not giving out the names till the next of kin are notified and the you give out the address and then neighbors names, dont you think thats wrong, any body that hasnt been notified would read it in the paper first, same as when a car wreck and u dont give out names but tell the year, make color of the car, every parent or friend readig that and knowing some one with that kind of car would be beside them selfs till they found out it was not their son, daughter or other kin,,,,, I just think it all should be left out of the article untill the police have been able to reach every body and then you could print all the details

We talked about this a great deal last night. And we decided to publish the names when we were certain they were correct. First, the names had been broadcast on local TV. This is not a capitulation to the “everybody is doing it” crowd, but rather a recognition that any embargo was already breached. Second, from a reporting standpoint, it seemed pretty clear that this was as much a story about a neighborhood as it was about violence in the home. The Gallimore’s neighbors knew who they were. To treat them as an abstract “they” seemed wrong.

Now, to get to the point that all of you are waiting for ... Isn’t this hypocritical? The newspaper won’t publish all the information law-enforcement gives it in some cases (suspect descriptions), but publishes more information than given in other circumstances? I think the common thread in both instances is what I would call precision. A name is precise. It narrows it down to one couple. Saying a suspect was a middle-aged white male could be a lot of folks. Looking out my office window I see five people in my narrow range of vision who fit that category. Looking in the mirror, I see a sixth ...

Interesting story in the NY Times today. Toll Brothers CEO blaming the news media for the real-estate mess.

Finally, a little bragging on some of our staff. Our college basketball preview today is incredible, the work of an incredibly dedicated team of reporters, editors, artists and designers. Check it out.

There’s been a lot of discussion in journalism circles of late regarding the use of race as an identifier in crimes stories and briefs. For example, if there was a robbery at the convenience store and the clerk’s description is that the robber was about 6 feet tall and black, is that relevant information for a story. Journal policy has tended to say that isn’t. The reasoning being that the idea behind publishing descriptions of suspects is to give people information that will keep them safe or assist the police in arresting a suspect. A description that has only race and height isn’t specific enough to be of help, but instead just fans racial stereotypes.

This past Friday we wrote about a reported rape in a neighborhood off Country Club Road. We didn’t include the description of the attacker, because it was fairly limited.

Here’s some correspondence we received:

I live near Huntcliff and my son has friends who live there so I heard about the assault yesterday. What I heard was that it was a black male who assaulted the woman. In fact the news last night reported that. Your article, however, makes no mention of this. I find this disturbing in that some people will only read your article and not have knowledge of this very pertinent fact. It is impossible for one to identify someone based on their frame and clothes alone without knowing their race. If it were white man, I would certainly want to know. This is not a racial matter by any means. This is a fact and it is your job to report the facts to the public without fear of being considered racist. Please do so in the future.

Here’s the response sent from one of our editors:

It is the Journal’s policy that we only reveal race, black or white, if there is a specific enough description of a suspect that we feel it will be useful to help catch a person. Typically, this means we would like to see some physical description, clothing description, etc.

If the only description is so vague as it could be just about anyone, then including the race doesn’t do anything except get people’s emotions roiled up, again, whether black or white.

Of course, this is a judgment call on the part of the newspaper each time an incident occurs, but over years of practice, newspapers including the Journal have found it to be a good practice. In this specific case, the description of the suspect did not include enough detail that we believed the inclusion of race ... was warranted. Some, as you do, may disagree, and we will consider this as we do followups.

-----

Many newspapers have policies similar to ours, but like all policies they are constantly getting tweaked and reevaluated. Here’s what the News & Observer in Raleigh is doing. I’ll be interested to see how it works in practice.

I’m also interested in your thoughts on this issue.