The Monday e-mailbag
May 12th, 2008, 8:37 am · Post a Comment · posted by madisontaylor
Sometimes I go back and forth with readers by e-mail. One frequent writer is Mike K who really, really hates the newspaper. From what I gather he’s a former reader who now lives out of town and reads us online. He wrote me last week about our “tabloid” coverage of the Kevin Hopkins case. I wrote him back very simply that our only other option was to not cover it at all. I always respond to Mike even though he never believes anything I tell him.
But his original e-mail got me to thinking about how we covered the case, which resulted in a column in Sunday’s Times-News and the post prior to this one.
Anyway, before those were published he wrote me this note back.
—
“Please tell me why you could not tell us the story without all the detail? You must know that to claim all or nothing is not proper. You know it was tabloid and all the little people just could not wait and had to see what he or she said next or did she do this or did he do that. The problem with your paper is that none of you will admit when you are wrong. You only find fault with others but you are always right. You are violating what should be an oath that you should have to take. If you are straight only or if you are that and garbage tell us. I challenge you to tell me another paper that would have done the tabloid style as you did other than the piece of well you know in Graham. Please show more integrity.”—Mike K then went on to say that a friend from another paper told him they would have never covered the trial just the results and charge. He said “it was clear that you were sensationalizing the deal.”
—
I submit that Mike’s friend is either misinformed about what our stories were about or is a simply a bad journalist. A trial involving a police officer or any public official on a similar charge would be duly covered by any newspaper. Can I name other newspapers that would write such stories — almost any in a large metro market. The News and Observer, the Charlotte Observer, that Atlanta Journal Constitution. Name me a newspaper that wouldn’t.
The truth is, we don’t cover this kind of thing every day and usually only report the results. Again, because the trial involved someone in a position of responsibility we decided to cover it. Again, we left out lots of stuff.
Will we do so again in similar circumstances? Yes. And we will also pay attention to what we should and should not report. Sometimes the line is pushed and every so often we go over. Did that happen here? Perhaps. I’d also like for people to understand that what’s published online isn’t always what’s presented in the print edition.
Check local listings?
I got a phone call from a reader last week who noticed we ran the wrong TV grid in Friday’s paper. He noticed because the show “Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader” was listed as coming on at 8 p.m. It’s a Thursday program. When he pointed out the error I picked up on it because “Lost” was listed at 10 p.m.
I’d say both were metaphors for this debacle.
Because I was unaware of the problem until he called at around 9 a.m. the caller was surprised. “I would’ve thought a lot of people would call,” he said.So would I, which makes me wonder: How many people use the daily TV grid anymore. Most can mark programs ahead of time in the weekly TV guide we publish on Saturday or use the listings on cable. If there’s a page cut needed, this may be one to look at.
The truth hurts
Another caller on Friday noted that we had yet to run the full Alamance County results from last week’s election. Yes, we had the local races covered but not how Alamance voted for president, governor, etc.I was stunned. I knew the reader was right. We had talked about it being done but didn’t make the important leap to getting it done. I was frankly embarrassed. We made sure to include it in Saturday’s paper.
“So what does it say about ya’ll that it took this long to get the totals in?” the reader asked. I think he believed it to be a rhetorical question.
I, however, did not.
“It means we sucked on this one,” I told him.
And I meant every word.
Stimulus stimulation
Over the weekend a reader sent me this e-mail. I had no ready answer for him. Do you?—“Did I miss something when the news organizations were telling about the checks. $600 if you had $3,000 or more “earned” income. $300 minimum if you have no income but filed a return. There is a little other thing. You are limited on the $600 by the amount of tax liability for 2007. Lets say a person earned $12,500 in 2007 but had a lot of deductions and his total tax liability was $480. Then $480 is all that person’s check will be for. I didn’t really see that in the news. Mike Clayton in Prospect Hill.”
