If you read our Letters to the Editor, you’ve probably seen a fair number criticizing our columnist Scott Sexton. What started the ball rolling was a column about layoffs and executive pay at Hanesbrands and the company’s contributions to the proposed downtown arts complex. The gist of their comments are that corporate philanthropy is worthy, regardless of the giver or the timing of the gift, and that people who don’t recognize the value of downtown arts projects are shortsighted Philistines.
But more to the larger point that I sense in these letters and conversations around town is the idea that a columnist for a newspaper or a TV station (where Jesse Helms earned his stripes) or a Web site should be a cheerleader for and never ask hard questions for the folks in power. That they shouldn’t jab or poke or prod or tease.
That’s precisely what they should do, as well as praise if they think it’s warranted. Interpret facts and state an opinion. It’s not the newspaper’s opinion. It’s their opinion. We provide a columnist a forum (and a paycheck) because we think the voice is worth hearing, if not always agreeing with.
Now Scott works for the Metro Editor, who reports to me, and I report to the Executive Editor who reports to the Publisher. So, yes, there are a lot of people who could tell Scott what to write about (or more likely what NOT to write about.) But it’s a false Eden. The result is pablum. Once you start telling an opinion writer what their opinion has to be, pretty soon the whole thing falls apart. You can’t have a guard dog protect only one half of the yard.
Do I agree with everything Scott writes? Of course not. But that’s not the point. Or my job. It’s to make sure that he plays fair, reports accurately and states his opinion in a way that’s easy to understand and hopefully enjoyable to read.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
If I agreed with everything Scott Sexton wrote, I’d find him pretty boring.
Do I agree with that column? Well, yes and no. I fully support the presence of art in our community. But given the absolute choice of one or the other, I love jobs in our community little bit more. You can’t feed your children art.
That said, it isn’t a black and white issue. You can support SOME art and save SOME jobs. But a column isn’t quite long enough to get into the gray, and I get that.
Bringing this back to the Journal, it peeves me that an incredible number of events in the community are “sponsored by” the Journal, yet the Journal keeps cutting pages, cutting features, cutting jobs. A little less sponsorship of local events and a little more local reporting on them, please.
Good comments. I’m sympathetic to your request, but I would be lying if I said we’ve solved that problem. The economics of a daily newspaper are tough and getting tougher. I think the future is going to be more focused coverage. There’s an argument to be made that these are self-inflicted wounds, but that’s way too simplistic for me. It’s really that the world has changed.
We sponsor events from a business side to be a good corporate citizen and because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t claim to be privy to all the internal workings of the publisher’s office, but my educated guess is that these are separate items in the ledger sheet and playing one against the other probably does more harm than good.
I grasp that, but when both are done under the big umbrella heading “The Winston-Salem Journal”, it’s ridiculous to ask that we keep them separate in our minds. You* want us to see the name “WSJ” and associate the paper with an event, but then later if called on it, you’d* like us to separate the “paper” from the “philanthropy”, and that frankly doesn’t work. You* can’t have it both ways. Putting it in the black-white column terms, the WSJ’s job is to keep us appraised of the doings of the town, not BE the doings of the town.
I cannot wait for the more focused coverage! Any idea when the daily Newsmakers column might be done away with like the weekly arts listings were? Newsmakers also could certainly be relegated to online only, I feel sure.
*Media General or whomever pulls all those ledger sheets together, not YOU you, Ken O.
I get you. Because I work here, I probably see the distinction more. Probably the avg. or above avg. person either doesn’t know or doesn’t care.
The avg. or above avg person recognizes that an organization is the sum total of its parts, no more, no less. What the right hand does is not separate from what the left hand does, because somewhere a brain links them both. Now that brain may be in Richmond, but exist it does.
Ken, you consistently defend the organizational decisions of “media general” regarding WSJ coverage and ethics. You consistently quote “national averages” and “trends in the industry"… Yet what we all know is that the Journal could make a decision to buck the trends and set their own.
But fine then - let’s talk about these “national trends”.
In this community, local businesses, advertisers, readers, and community orgs have repeatedly asked for more local coverage. Weekly papers - which tend to focus on LOCAL coverage - continue to rise in circulation and advertising income. As “you” /the “Journal” /"Media General” have continued to cut exactly that, your subscriptions and advertising income has continued to drop. Local businesses have offered to underwrite entire pages (uhmmm… a very normal media trend I beleive!?) to be told no - that interferes with content - while simultaneously the Journal cites paper costs and continues to cut pages from sections.
Regarding the Hanesbrands cuts, is it not also true that while recently the Journal cut the art reviews, an additional 2 pages from Living… only 3 weeks beforehand MG bought an additional paper (in Georgia? Alabama? I do not recall...)
Those who live in glass houses…
Sharon: Thanks for writing. I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. My post was about the right of a local columnist to write about what he or she chooses to write, hopefully or at least reasonably unfettered by the opinions of the editorial page, management and the business offices.
In terms of arts coverage, yes, we’ve cut back. Yes, there are a few, fairly isolated instances of newspapers that in recent years have grown their way to financial health, but for metro daily newspapers, they’re extremely rare, and I can’t think of any off the bat that have managed to pull it off.
I don’t think having businesses sponsor content is a practical idea. If our arts coverage, for example, was sponsored by the Arts Council, would it be considered as impartial or independent? Probably not. I suppose there is an argument that sponsored content is better than less content, but I don’t agree with that argument.
I think the purchase you are referring to was in Hartsville, SC. A weekly that we purchased that made strategic sense with our other properties there.
The reality of the world is that we all live in glass houses. Anyway, that’s all. Again, thanks for writing.
Couldn’t you consider replacing “Newsmakers” (which usually are not) with a local briefs section. I’m guessing that 90 plus percent of the WSJ coverage can easily be read online from other sources which kind of begs me to question why I should subscribe. What is the unique proposition offered by the Journal?
?!
Well I am not sure what the Arts Council has to do with this, as I was not specifically citing what coverage was to be paid for. The 2 offers that I am aware of were for local high school athletes to be featured, and another which would have been an ongoing community focus page with pieces from arts, edu, the medical centers, business, and other segments.
As for control of content, I know for a fact that Journal feature writers have certainly been told what to write, and in what tone (negative), so you again have no hold to defend there. I know this, you know this.
This comunity is an anomaly in so many ways I see no reason our paper could not be as well. We certainly have a wealth of writing talent, along with our other creative industries. Those are fairly lame excuses for lack of success… particularly when the Journal has heard loud and clear from ALL local segments that what the people want is local coverage - local features - local writers. AP articles are available anywhere. We don’t need them repeated here.
And what was it that the Journal’s “recently awarded business writer” told a local business owner who had won a national award? Unless the guy had paid someone off or there was some other scandal involved, he simply was not interested! Brilliant way to support the community, don’t you agree? Great attitude towards gaining readers!
Mine is a wasted argument, I am well aware. Thus - like many others I will continue to turn to other sources.
Sharon: Though I will take your comments in a spirit of honesty, I’m going to have to disagree with you. I don’t know of an instance where we have told somebody to do a negative feature story. Lots of people say things without knowing all the facts or because they don’t like the way a story came out. If you have a specific example, let me know, and I will look into it.
Thnx
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.