Otterblog

There was an important hearing about differing interpretations of North Carolina’s Public Records Law yesterday. Here’s our story on it, for those who missed it.

Public records are incredibly important for a democratic (with a little D) society. Lots of people think newspapers and other media want special status in public records. We don’t. We want everybody to be able to get the records they think are important for helping them understand how government works.

In this case, our argument is with the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office over 911 tapes created during two high-profile incidents. The 911 calls are raw and emotional. But our reason for wanting to examine wasn’t just about their visceral power. We’re also keenly interested in how law enforcement responded to these crises. These emergency communications give one clue.

The sheriff, the DA and the defense attorneys have their own reasons for not wanting to release these tapes, and their lawyers and ours made compelling oral arguments to the N.C. Court of Appeals yesterday. I’ll keep you apprised of the ruling.

I got the following email question late Monday:

How many of the stories do you actually read before they go to print?

First, let me assume that this is not a subtle dig at my work ethic.

The answer is it depends on what I’m doing that day. On occasion, I fill in for other editors while they are on vacation or assigned to a project. In those instances, I’ll read a lot of stories. From a supervisory standpoint, myself and the executive editor manage the newsroom, but it’s not feasible or practical for one person to read everything before publication. On a typical day, I may be personally involved with anywhere between half a dozen to a dozen stories—from sketching out how to approach a topic to the writing and the graphics etc. I try to read the stories that I think are most significant and most complex.

If nothing else, having a third or fourth set of eyes—and hopefully a fresh set of eyes—on a story is very helpful.

Some of you might be familiar with a concept called the Stockholm Syndrome. It sort of means that the kidnapped start to identify with the kidnappers. Editors and journalists have to guard against a similar type of effect while working on a story. We can become too familiar with a topic and that can alter how we present a story, what we include or what we think can be left out.

I wanted to take a few seconds to tell you all what I hope OTTERBLOG will be about. First and foremost, journalism as practiced by the Journal and JournalNow. Mostly print, but I will get into broadcast or multimedia if I think I have something worth adding to the conversation.

Fair topics include ethics, public records, open meetings, election coverage, the culture of newsrooms, good headlines (see earlier post), bad headlines, blown stories, missed opportunities, great writing, great reporting, etc. etc. We can also as needed discuss other forms of writing—books, magazines etc., along with two other topics—food and regional history—that I care about.

I have a pretty thick skin, and I am used to getting criticized. So I don’t mind if folks have disagreements with my perspective. There are frequently and often several plausible views on any issue. My one request is to keep it reasonably civil and the e-decibels down below the full-blown yell.

Thanks for reading.

The big story today is Ford Motor Co.’s decision to close more than a dozen factories and eventually lose about 30,000 jobs. It’s sad no matter how you slice it. Lots of lives disrupted.

I’ve been thinking about Ford’s reckoning for another reason. A couple of years ago, we did a survey that asked readers this question: If the Journal were a car, what type would it be? If my memory is correct, the leading answer was Ford, and many of us interpreted that as a vote in favor of our solid reliability. Which is good and all that. But it does make you think if that is enough or was it ever enough.

Ford’s problem is the problem of all institutions as they try to adapt to the marketplace and to changes in technology and consumer expectations. We feel it keenly here. The drumbeat of the Internet, the shrinking shelf life of News, the new definitions of news and community. They’re all changing how a newspaper is put together and what it contains or ought to contain. It’s exciting and frustrating. A journey and destination.

A poem for Monday:

Writing a headline
is like creating Haiku.
It must work - and fit.

Among the hardest jobs at the paper is writing headlines. There’s limited space, both in the number of words available and the width of the columns. Think about it this way. It’s easy to get Bush into a one-column lead headline. Washington would be another matter. And then of course is the real test, balancing truth and seduction. Good headlines inform, attract and entertain. Puns are good when they work. When they don’t, a bad pun headline is like the guest at your party who never leaves.

The Panthers’ loss to the Seahawks yesterday gave a chance for headline writers to strut their stuff. Here are how three newspapers headlined the story, at least in their printed editions.

Winston-Salem Journal: ‘Helpless in Seattle’. Pretty good. Almost as inspired as our infamous DANG headline of two years ago, when the Cats lost in the Super Bowl.

News & Record: West Toast. A little obscure to pick up on the pun, but big and bold and I applaud it. Newspapers don’t use toast in the non-breakfast sense nearly enough.

Charlotte Observer: Seattle Reigns. Dignified. And maybe I’m reading too much into it, but my sense is that head subtly implies that the Panthers didn’t lose so much as Seattle won.

Sometimes I think we’d all be better off if everybody read The Economist magazine. Sounds elitist, but it really isn’t. Great journalism with a global perspective and a tilt toward brevity, fiscal sanity and common sense.

Their cover story this week is called King Content, and it’s a nice tour of the media landscape in the early 21st Century and what it’s likely to become. Key points: Technology. Changes. Everything. You can read that as one sentence or three. It doesn’t matter.

First, technology. We haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve only scratched the surface of the digital and wireless revolution. Second, change. You can’t fight it. You can only ride it. Third. Everything. It means just that. Everything.

The fourth point—and here’s what the Big Ape is all about—is this: Content is still King. At the end of the day, the technology is only as good as what it connects you to and with.

Our story this morning on Osama bin Laden’s latest tape recording struck a nerve with many readers—in print and online. Our online poll, although not scientific, hints at how worried many Americans are about his plans and intention. And reader reaction is strong.

We received over 15 pages of messages. Amazing. There’s a continuing debate among U.S. policymakers and in newsrooms about the news value of Osama bin Laden. One argument is that he’s no longer particularly relevant. As a hunted terrorist, he’s in deep hiding, marginalized to the point of nonimportance. The other view, suggested by what readers say, is that we care about bin Laden. He’s a symbol for the war on terrorism, it successes, shortcomings and its duration.

We carried a small police brief today about a woman who apparently killed herself by jumping off a bridge in Yadkin County. Careful readers of the Journal know that we don’t publish a lot of suicides these days. That’s a change from the past.

Our old policy was that we reported all suicides in our circulation area. Or at least we tried to. But our policy changed over the years to reflect two different concerns. The first was whether there was compelling public interest in a very private and painful decision by somebody to end their own life. Our collective decision was that most times there wasn’t. The second—although less important—was more pragmatic. Finding out about suicides was extremely difficult. In some counties, they weren’t reported in a timely fashion and were on occasion covered up. The result was haphazard coverage, which didn’t make a lot of sense.

Here’s the basic rule now. We report suicides for three general categories. First are suicides that take place in a public setting. Second would be a suicide by a public official or similar newsworthy person. Third are trend stories that examine the issue of suicide, such as past coverage of high suicide rates among the elderly in some rural counties. 

Got the word this afternoon that Vernon Robinson is considering a run for Congress against Mel Watt. Vernon is a smart guy, often entertaining, and his brand of take-no-prisoners politics often makes for good newspaper stories.

The problem for him is one of demographics. Watt’s district, the 12th Congressional, is a serpentine patch of land that stretches from Charlotte to Greensboro. According to the State Board of Elections, it’s among the most heavily Democratic districts in the state, with Ds outnumbering Rs more than 2-1. In addition, it covers two major broadcast markets, which increases the cost of campaigning and makes it difficult for a challenger, particularly one who is not from the Charlotte area.

Robinson ran a credible campaign against Earline Parmon several years ago, but he’ll have a hard time against Watt, who is tough and smart and well-connected as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. The first question for Robinson—and for the Journal—is figuring out whether he will be able to get National Republicans to pay attention to this race and give him some financial help. If not, he could end up with a megaphone but not enough batteries.

That raises another question for journalists: how much attention to give to races that aren’t very competitive. It’s the same situation in the 5th Congressional, now that Allen Joines has shied away from challenging Virginia Foxx. The Democrats will probably find somebody to run, but they won’t have the stature that Joines would have brought to the race. 

John Delong used to cover pro basketball for us. That ended when George Shinn moved the Hornets to New Orleans. But John’s kept his hand in the game, and he still has a keen understanding of the game and its players. There was a lot of squawking on Monday about John’s column on Chris Paul, which basically said the former Wake (and West Forsyth) star made the right move to turn pro and people who don’t like it just need to get over it and move on. John is a straight-shooter. You may not agree with his opinions, but it’s clear where he is coming from.

Like any other institution, we like to be right. So, the story this morning about Paul leading the Hornets past the Bobcats was a nice confirmation of John’s insight and intuition.

Will that stop the message board rants? Of course not. And that’s OK. The noise of the marketplace of ideas is a good thing.