Why We Do Things | Madison Taylor

Archive for the 'Why we do things' Category

Thanks for listening

May 10th, 2013, 6:01 am by madisontaylor

The newspaper is always asking government to open its hiring procedure to public inspection, especially when it gets down to crunch time for the highest-paying jobs that carry the most responsibility. Today’s editorial thanks Alamance Community College for taking us up on it in the hiring of its new president.

—-

For too many years to count, newspapers have made a fairly simple request of local governments preparing to fill their most important positions. And routinely the request has been denied, or worse, ignored.

Sort of like howling into a desolate and pitiless wilderness.

But predictably, we continued to ask the board of education, county commissioners, city or town councils or city and town halls to provide people in the community a list of the final candidates to be considered for jobs such as school superintendent, county manager, city manager or police chief. There is no law against releasing those names, governments simply decide not to do so — often citing confidentially for a candidate who would rather keep that information from a current employer.

So just as predictably, those names remained secret until one person was chosen for the job without taxpayers having much say in who might be selected or outside of any public or media scrutiny.

Thursday, that changed, at least in one case. Without our insistence or badgering, Alamance Community College submitted six names — with background information — to the Times-News and other media outlets. The persons listed constitute the finalists for the biggest job at the college, its president. One of those six will succeed current college president Martin Nadelman, who is retiring in October.

To this we say, well done.

Because the college authorized this move, people in Alamance County know, for example, that one candidate is from right here in this community — Gene C. Couch, who is executive vice president at ACC, a job he’s held since 2011. We also know he has experience working for another community college and a variety of degrees from Mars Hill College, Western Carolina and East Tennessee State University.

The list also reveals candidates from Arkansas and Oregon and three more from North Carolina areas ranging from near the coast to the sandhills to the Piedmont.

The time frame for choosing Nadelman’s successor calls for naming a replacement by July. The full college Board of Trustees will begin meeting with the finalists soon.

Meanwhile, college spokesman Ed Williams said in a press release that ACC staff, faculty and the community will have opportunities to meet the candidates. Informal gatherings will be scheduled and public notices issued. Meanwhile, reporters for print, broadcast and online outlets will have a chance to conduct their own research into those in line for a position that pays a six-figure salary and heads an entity that is among the county’s largest employers.

Thanks to the college for giving the public this important opportunity. Hopefully more local governments will do the same.

Posted in: Just thinking out loud • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

An open and shut case

April 29th, 2013, 12:46 pm by madisontaylor

George Adams sends me email all day long. He’s the Alamance County representative for the Tar Heel Senior Legislature, a conservative and a devoted follower of local news. He reads everything that’s out there about our community.

Over the weekend he sent me this, after, I suspect, reading about the vote last week in the state Senate regarding local government or court public notices being published only on government websites. We publish a weekly record each weekend of how our legislators are voting in Raleigh so folks here at home can see what they’re up to. Alamance County’s state senator, Rick Gunn, voted that a handful of counties, including Guilford, would no longer have to publish so-called “legal notices” in the newspaper. I think the measure won by three votes in the Senate but it still has to go before the House.

Here’s what George wrote to me on Saturday morning.

Mr Taylor:

How does it feel to be betrayed by our state Senator Gunn on this important issue for our local newspapers and for the elderly who most of which do not have access to a computer? I guess you are beginning to feel like Big Joe Tickle did when the City of Burlington bamboozled him.

I understand their argument about this will save the cities and towns some money but how much of these saving do you think will go toward reducing taxes or recruiting new jobs for our unemployed in this city and county?

Sir, I think you might find any savings that are accrued in the pockets of the managers and department heads of these cities and towns.

I hope Rep Riddell and Rep Ross will vote against this blatant attempt to shut off information to our Senior Citizens. I guess we will see if the rumor is true that Mr. Ross is the City of Burlington’s man in Raleigh!

George Adams

MY TAKE: First, thanks to George for taking up the cause for open and available access to public information. And he makes the best argument. This is not a newspaper issue — though we do stand to lose money at a time when we can least afford to. No, this is a matter of who will be shut out of local government, foreclosures, etc., if this law is both passed, then spread to other counties like so much legislative kudzu.

It will be the seniors who don’t have computer access and don’t want it — like my own 81-year-old mom — and the poor who simply can neither afford to go online or don’t have the education to do so.

This is both a shame and a sham.

Republican leadership has been pushing this measure since the party gained power in Raleigh, largely because a few power brokers don’t like newspapers all that much. But by punishing the ink-stained wretches because we report what they do, they also penalize those who are otherwise powerless to stop them.

Will there be a time when local governments can get out of the legal ad business? Yes. I think that will come sooner rather than later — perhaps 10 years or so.

In the meantime, newspapers can post both in print and online to meet the largest number of potential readers.

As for Rick Gunn, I’m not sure there’s any feel a sense of betrayal on my part. Newspapers have to find their own way to succeed in the world today like anyone else. And he owes us nothing and we owe him the same. That’s as it should be between the media and politicians. But I do get the idea that he has no interest in open government or the rights of citizens, just towing the party line. That is a loss for everyone.

Hopefully, open government will get more daylight in the House, where both Republican Reps. Dennis Riddell and Steve Ross have pledged to keep the public notices accessible to the highest number of people.

That’s good representation folks.

Posted in: Politics too complicated for politicians • Strange but true journalism stories • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Putting some bite in a toothless law

April 23rd, 2013, 4:28 pm by madisontaylor

In one of the more predictable spring events, the N.C. League of Municipalities has stated its opposition to a bill now in the N.C. Senate that would make it a misdemeanor for local governments to illegally withhold release of a public record upon request.

Yes, like blooms appearing on red buds, dogwoods and azaleas, Senate Bill 125, proposed by Republican Sen. Thom Goolsby of Wilmington, was advanced in the General Assembly. And like pollen, the ritual thumbs down arrived from the league, which represents the interests of cities and towns in North Carolina.

But not the interests of the people.

Annually, measures to advance the cause of open government are introduced into the N.C. General Assembly. Just as regularly, state groups advising local governments find fault with opening documents or meetings to taxpaying citizens. Ahh, the spring smells of freshly mowed grass or newly butchered legislation abound.

So no one was shocked last week when Burlington’s interim city attorney advised the city council against supporting SB125, actually called “An Act to Make Violations of the Public Records and Open Meetings Laws a Class 3 Misdemeanor.” What the law would do is put some backbone into state measures already in place to protect the liberty not only of the press, but private citizens. Under the current laws, if the city council meets in secret, there is no penalty. If a citizen asks for a public record but is denied by anyone at city hall, county office or the board of education absolutely no one is held accountable.

Why have a law if no one pays a penalty for breaking it?

Under the bill filed by Goolsby and co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Tom Apodaca of Hendersonville, a person violating the public records or meetings law would face a Class 3 misdemeanor charge. The maximum fine for a Class 3 misdemeanor is $200, with up to 10 days of community punishment for a first offense.

Goolsby has said that the charge would go against the person in charge of an office of government or the elected official who denies access to a record — not a clerk or other municipal employee who is following directions from a superior.

Charles Bateman, Burlington’s interim city attorney, called the bill an unfair burden on the city’s staff members, who would most frequently be on the front lines for a public records request. It’s an assessment that doesn’t hold much water. While Bateman contends that the laws are confusing and even lawyers make errors, we respectfully disagree. Where attorneys run afoul of public records laws is in their attempt to skirt the law. In erring on the side of open government and open records — as it should be — no one should face criminal charges. Better training, coupled with instructing local government staff members to simply follow the law should mitigate most errors in judgment that could occur.

Place us in the camp supporting Senate Bill 125 along with, predictably enough, our friends at the North Carolina Press Association.

Call it like leaves forming on the trees.

Posted in: Just thinking out loud • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

AP rips off the label

April 2nd, 2013, 12:57 pm by madisontaylor

When I returned to Burlington to rejoin the Times-News in 2007 I was taken aback by how angry the debate here had become over Hispanic immigration — more specifically, the number of Mexican residents who entered this country illegally, then stayed.

It was perhaps the hottest button issue I had encountered since 1992. At that time, I had just moved to the Jacksonville, N.C. area where we covered Camp Lejeune. President Clinton took office with a vow to change military policy so people who were openly gay could serve their country. Now, that was an angry time. People moved from the area because of it, including one of our staff members at the Daily News. And this was before internet message boards.

It was an ugly environment with sign-carrying protesters and vandalism at a local gay bar.

The atmosphere was similar in Alamance County regarding immigration. At that time, the Times-News was sharply criticized by both sides for almost any story we published about the issue. The comments were at once pointed, often unfair and sometimes just mean or bigoted. Welcome to trolls on websites.

One area of major contention was in how we identified those in the country illegally. None of the identifiers we tried satisfied anyone, including ourselves. Immigrant, illegal immigrant, illegal, alien, illegal alien, undocumented . . . the list goes on. None were exactly right, or even partially right. Some were flat wrong or simply weird.

Other newspapers had the same problem, as did the Associated Press. After much debate a few years ago, the AP stayed with “illegal immigrant.” Because we historically follow AP style — as best we can anyway, sometimes AP doesn’t even follow its own style very consistently — we did so again.

Today, the AP changed its policy, and so will we.

Jim Romensko’s journalism blog posted the press release from the Associated Press about the change. Here’s the text.

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.

Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the thinking behind the decision:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

Why did we make the change?

The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed “illegal immigrant” as the best use, for two reasons.

A number of people felt that “illegal immigrant” was the best choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.

Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again.

We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.

So we have.

Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road.

Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate.

I suspect now we will hear from some language lovers who will find other labels in the AP Stylebook. We welcome that engagement. Get in touch at stylebook@ap.org or, if you are an AP Stylebook Online subscriber, through the “Ask the Editor” page.

Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.

Here is how the AP’s updated stylebook entry will read.

illegal immigrationEntering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.

Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.

MY TAKE: The style may change, but I doubt the debate will die down. But this is what we’ll try our best to follow, complicated as it might be.

Posted in: Strange but true journalism stories • The Grammarian • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

The holiday emailbag

January 3rd, 2013, 1:05 pm by madisontaylor

Things always slow down a little over the holidays so there’s not a lot in the old December emailbag.

But what we got was pretty stout.

Let’s start with the hate mail first.

Earlier in the month we took an editorial stand stating that it was a positive that the U.S. Supreme Court would be considering the issue of same-sex marriage and that the nation’s opinion seems to be moving in favor of it as a constitutionally protected freedom. It got a strong response from this Snow Camp reader.

Please immediately cancel my subscription which is prepaid through July 25, 2013 and refund the $92.82 advance payment. I cannot lend financial support to a business/organization which supports same-sex marriage. Your editorial today is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in God and believes the Bible to be God’s word. While I respect your right to believe as you will and agree that you represent the majority, I do not want this view brought into my home.

MY TAKE: Since we were opposed last year to the amendment to the state constitution stating that marriage could only be considered legal when it’s between a man and a woman, I was frankly a little stunned by this note. The Times-News has always endorsed individual freedom, and did so at that time as well.

As always, I hope readers who cancel that subscriptions will return. But it won’t alter our opinions.

People ask stuff

File this one in the odd questions for a newspaper guy department.

I plan on moving out from my 2 Bedroom and 1 Bathroom House to a 3 Bedroom and 2 Bathroom House. The house that I am moving to is in Glen Raven. I went to look at it a few days ago, and the house looked ok but I didn’t feel safe in the neighborhood. I want to have kids in this house but the surrounding area is not pleasing me. I thought Glen Raven was a nice place but my mind has been changed. So my question is do you believe personally, Glen Raven is a safe environment? Please, it would be nice to hear back from you.

MY TAKE: I have no idea.

On Newtown

George Adams, who writes to me about every day had a request. He directed this not only to me, but to Alamance News editor Tom Boney Jr. as well. Then again, George sent me an email last week addressed to Mr. President and Mr. Taylor.

I’m pretty sure this confused someone who answers stuff for the White House.

The public asks that you gentlemen do what you do best and take a comprehensive look at the statistics surrounding the specific causes of violence and violent death in this country.

The Times News (editorial) called “ A dangerous mix “ gives the public a look at the largest merchant of death in this country , car accidents and alcohol car related deaths.

I have pointed out that in Mr Obama’s own town Chicago drug related homicides are the highest in the Country. It is common knowledge among people who don’t profit from the drug trade that the “ War on Drugs “ has not stopped the cartels from shipping and selling tons of drugs to our young people. So much so that it has become a cottage industry that chases its tail with no end in sight.

Another extensive look should be at our broken Mental Health System . Everyone knows to call 911 when they see a crime being committed by a criminal. But who does the average citizen know to call if they think a Laughner or Lanza needs Mental Health services. Based on Columbine, Laughner, Aurora Colorado Theater, and Sandy Hook Elementary we should have a reasonable way of identify these disturbed people without violating their civil rights. In order to avoid neighbors calling these hot lines just because they are mad at their neighbors , it would be mandatory that a serious caller identify themselves so officials could screen positive callers vs negative callers.

Finally , are you going to give up your Constitutional rights to a group of socialists who sat on their behinds and did nothing while previous violent episodes took place because they didn’t want to hurt their re-election chances.

If we are going to open up the discussion on violence, then let’s get it right for once and encourage the public to participate without letting our dysfunctional federal government dictate what happens with the lives of our children and teachers for years into the future. Keep in mind this is the same federal government that invaded the wrong country just a few years ago and can’t seem to control their own reckless spending which allows these government bureaucrats to live lifestyles far above the ordinary citizens who do not have secret service men to protect them from criminal and foreign invaders. Always remember during the War of 1812 , Congress and the White House ran and left the fighting to others. Now these same brave patriots are beginning to demand control of how you defend your children and homes.

Boy I wish I had a bullet proof limousine to drive to the grocery once a week like Mr Obama !

George Adams

MY TAKE: George has one thing right for sure. This nation, state and county needs to take a long and hard look at mental health services. There is no one to call but 911 about a potential problem and often the mentally ill wind up in the emergency room at the local hospital before either being released or placed in a facility. But the latter happens all too seldom.

We continue to ignore the mentally ill at our peril – and theirs.

Growing new writers and readers

Got this from Dennis Abline, a social studies teacher at Burlington Christian Academy. He had his class submit letters to the Times-News Open Forum regarding education reform. We were able to put three in print and posted the remainder online under our “Unedited Letters to the Editor.”

Just wanted to say a quick thank you for publishing the letters. The students really enjoyed seeing their names in the paper. It provides motivation. Thanks..

MY TAKE: It was our pleasure. We welcome letters from students or classes and can print them as we have the space. The letters should be of general interest or about a local topic. One issue we had with some of the student letters in this case was the frequent references to a problem with education in New York City. The students saw this in a film shown in class. But it was an unknown reference to our readers overall and not directly pertinent to education in North Carolina.

But all the students made their points well and we enjoyed printing the letters in our Open Forum. Hopefully we can develop new generations of letter writers.

Posted in: The e-mailbag • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Yeah, it’s different

December 20th, 2012, 7:11 am by madisontaylor

Probably a few people picked up their print Times-News today and wondered what’s different about it. Some might not notice it for awhile. Others right away.

Well, we’re smaller in width — but just a tad.

For the second time in almost six years we have trimmed the width of our print edition. Nearly five years ago we made a radical change — 2 inches. This time it’s about a half an inch. The paper size puts us in the same category of the Raleigh News & Observer and the Greensboro News & Record. It’s about like getting your hair trimmed — only this won’t grow back but will save several thousand dollars in production costs annually.

We decided not to make a big hullabaloo about it this time because the change is so minor. Five years ago we gave readers plenty of notice. Most who called in liked the cutdown at that time. It made the newspaper easier to read, they told us.

None of our regular features were eliminated as a result of the change. The print size is not any different, nor is the font. We did take the opportunity to make some minor page design tweaks. Our Five Minute Times that ran down the left hand side of the front page has moved to the top, above the newspaper’s masthead. We designed new headers for stories on page A1 that identify what general topic the story is about. We changed the name of our Opinion page to Views. Contact information about how to submit a letter to the editor will run daily at the bottom of the Views page. On the Sunday op-ed page, we will publish contact information for area lawmakers at the bottom of that page.

And in one very positive note, advertising tells me that the Sunday crossword and Sudoku puzzles will be larger in our classified section as a result of our changeover.

As always, readers may contact me with questions, suggestions or concerns. Because this blog isn’t connected to our new website as yet, readers can’t comment here. But please send me email at mtaylor@thetimesnews.com

Posted in: Inside the Times-News • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Culture of violence: We’re all part of the equation

December 18th, 2012, 8:59 am by madisontaylor

Over the weekend the internet and cable TV roiled like a flooded river as the events of Newtown, Conn., truly began to sink in across the nation. It was an awful two days of high emotion, sorrow, misinformation, anger and anguish.

First, the purely political began the job of assigning immediate blame. That’s what the purely political do. Then once blame is fairly or unfairly assigned, those on the opposing side immediately launch the inevitable counterpoint.

That part is all too predictable but easily avoidable to those who truly wish to do so.

Most hunkered down, hugged their kids, talked to friends and neighbors or ultimately reflected in prayer or some other form of comforting meditation. People searched for what little they could do to provide comfort for our brethren in the community of Newtown. The vast majority, though, simply felt helpless and damned mad about it.

This idea of societal blame for the actions of a mentally disturbed 20-year-old who took a load of weapons into an elementary school and murdered 26 people, 20 of them 6 and 7 year old children, is one that continues to yank at the collective mind of the nation. We have far too many of these random massacres. The names of the sites are even better known than the shooters: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Aurora, Milwaukee . . .

The shout for stricter gun control follows every single one, particularly those where assault weapons are used. The pro-gun groups predictably and rightly point out that the actions of maniacs could be carried out by dozens of other means. Tim McVeigh is their poster boy. He developed a bomb by using common fertilizer. It was a well-planned act of political terrorism.

What the pro-gun groups swallow whole and bury deep, is the fact that assault weapons provide a quick and efficient way for those of limited capabilities to do the most damage. Few deranged people can build a bomb, but nearly all can pull the trigger of an automatic weapon and commit unspeakable harm.

So yeah, we need to make those things harder to get.

But it’s far more complicated than that.

Gun-control legislation won’t make such incidents go away. What it would do is make carrying out these acts more difficult. But end public massacres? Not a chance.

The violence in our culture is a complicated equation made up of several things neither the government nor the public want to address. The sad truth is, the violence in our culture is directly linked to failures by our most powerful institutions.

Guns are a part of that equation and a big part. But so is pervasive mental illness. Political leaders have made a hobby of cutting services in that area. The mentally disturbed and their family members aren’t a very powerful lobby. They don’t make huge campaign contributions. As a result, politicians make a habit of ignoring mental health in hopes the people impacted will all go away.

Our society pays a price for it again and again.

Easily accessible guns combined with the mentally disturbed already form a deadly sum. Toss in a culture of violence percolated through saturation coverage by media of all description — print included — and the mathematical breaking point seems obvious.

I thought a lot this weekend about media coverage of the school massacre in Connecticut. I watched on Friday as incorrect information was cavalierly distributed each minute by largely cable TV news, which was then magnified online and through social media. There is no filter anymore. Cable news simply spits things out with very little thought about what’s accurate, fair or ethical. Was it really necessary to interview children on the day of the shootings?

Really?

Was it?

With endless hours of programming to fill, cable news decisions are based on quantity, not quality. Anyone who watched Nancy Grace can attest to it. Hour after hour the reporting continued, even when there was no news to report. All of this, of course, was backed by almost ceaselessly and often ignorant commentary based on the incorrect information being supplied by reporters in the field.

By concentrating on extreme acts of violence to the exclusion of all else, it does become glorified in the mind of someone with a potential to act in order to meet a deranged goal.

While I take some solace in the fact that print media conducts itself better, we’re still not without responsibility for lowering our nation’s culture to a near gutter level.

The news media’s job is to report about major incidents and to do so fairly and factually. But there is a greater responsibility not to sensationalize events or create more harm for those directly involved in such tragedies. And we certainly shouldn’t turn the killers themselves into celebrities.

And all of us in the public, well, at some point we have a responsibility to turn off the TV when the coverage becomes too much. After all, if people aren’t watching, then TV news would change the programming.

It’s how the business works.

Posted in: Heroes and Villans • Strange but true journalism stories • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Right place, wrong time

December 17th, 2012, 8:09 am by madisontaylor

There was a time a decade ago when it was unthinkable for newspapers to put advertising on the front page.

But times change. Economic realities came knocking on the door with vengeance. The once sacred turf on page A1 became for sale — in small spaces. Old school editors — and count me among them because I’m sort of youngish old school — predicted the collapse of civilization when it happened.

It didn’t of course. We continued to publish every day. We occasionally print advertisements at the bottom of the front page and every so often place one with a running feature like the Christmas Day countdown we’re using right now. About a year ago we added something called “post-it notes”, which are small stick-on advertisements placed somewhere on the front page. It can be easily peeled off. Hundreds of newspapers use them regularly. During this time of year we do so pretty much every day.

I haven’t had much problem with them myself. Every now and then at other newspapers I’ve seen placement of ads that obscured words that made things look a little … funky. Sunday, though, I saw something in the Times-News that caused me to blink. And it wasn’t the ad or advertiser. Both are fine. It was the context of the words in the ad juxtaposed with the news story.

Sunday we published a pretty important story about a problem in funding for group homes and that it would potentially leave 2,000 people with mental illness with no place to go. It’s a sad story, even a potentially tragic one. The “post-it note” ad on top of the story’s page layout featured the holiday phrase “Ho, ho, ho!” I haven’t had any complaints about it, but the images are bothersome — to me anyway.

And it made me wonder. The day before that “Ho, ho, ho” would’ve appeared on top of a story under the headline “Massacre in Connecticut.”

That would’ve been more than unfortunate, even a disaster from our my perspective. While we in the newsroom can’t predict what will be on the front page and where the post-it might appear, I know readers would be upset by such an occurrence. By contract we agree to publish the notes.

It’s something that gave me pause this weekend.

Posted in: Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Dealing with tragedy on both ends

November 26th, 2012, 10:23 pm by madisontaylor

Tragedies make news. It’s inevitable. And covering the outcome of wrecks, drownings, workplace accidents, shootings or anything in which a life is taken far too soon is perhaps the toughest thing a reporter or photographer has to do. The families we contact for information are usually devastated. Emotions are high — as well they should be. They either hate us, or welcome us — wishing to honor their deceased loved one by telling their stories.

The angry people dealing with an immediate family tragedy frequently ask reporters and editors during these times: “What if this happened to you?”

I think Steve Buttry answers this question with great care in a blog post about the loss of his nephew Brandon Buttry, a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago. Steve is a longtime journalist — serving as a reporter, editor and newspaper consultant. He’s now the Digital Transformation Editor for Digital First in Herndon, Va. He’s one of the leading experts today on using social media.

When he learned that Brandon Buttry was killed, he set himself up as the point of contact for the media representing his family. After all, who would know better than Steve what newspapers and TV stations would want to know while reporting about a young man killed in action serving his country. He learned a lot from the experience and developed a guide for families and journalists: “Tips for Dealing with the Media when a Loved One Dies at War” is the latest entry on his Buttry Diary blog.

It’s well worth reading for anyone dealing with a family tragedy that might be covered by the media — not only a hero killed in a war zone. Steve’s tips — from establishing a point of contact to getting news out before reporters call — are all exceptional. I told Steve today he was providing a valuable service to all involved in such events.

It’s my longstanding belief that reporters, editors and photographers have a responsibility to be sensitive to the needs of grieving families. Not all in my profession look at it that way. I’ve seen my share of minor and mindless atrocities committed in the name of what some reporters like to call “freedom of the press.” Most of my colleagues do a solid job of handling these situations. But it only takes one or two bad ones to taint us all.

I told Steve that I developed this way of viewing such circumstances while working for the Jacksonville Daily News, where we covered Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast. Military deaths were a part of the community fabric — especially after 9/11. But military accidents weren’t uncommon even before the war. The experimental Osprey aircraft had a few well-publicized crashes. One training incident at Onslow Beach occurred when a helicopter flew up into another aircraft, killing all the servicemembers on board both.

Those were horrible days for the families, the Marine Corps, the community and the newspaper.

Our reporters were instructed first and foremost to do no harm. We would not camp out in the yards of crushed families or call every 15 minutes. We refused to disrupt funerals — something our TV counterparts do every so often. Our reporters approached families quietly, usually through third parties who were asked to tell the family that should they wish to talk, we would interview them and tell the larger story about their loved one. Many want to talk during these times. An almost equal number do not.

My belief is that families should not be distressed even further by outside forces during such times. I know most appreciate it. A few told me so after contacting us months after the actual event to see if we still wanted to do a story about their loved one.

We did.

To Steve and his family I would like to offer my condolences on the loss of Brandon. I would also like to offer thanks to Steve for not only taking on a tough job for his family, but for also taking the time to write about it and help others.

Posted in: Inside the Times-News • Strange but true journalism stories • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Moonlight Madness, Redux

November 26th, 2012, 7:17 am by madisontaylor

Last Wednesday night, for the second year in a row, we sold newspapers hot off the press for folks clamoring to get their hands on the Black Friday ads in the Thanksgiving Day newspaper. Last year we sold about 300 newspapers from the front of our office on South Main Street on the night before Thanksgiving.

This year we topped that and then some.

Home delivery and audience development manager Todd Benz, who cooked up what he calls the Moonlight Madness sale — complete with disco ball at our Times-News tent, said people began to line up in their cars shortly after 8:30 p.m. for the 10 p.m. sale. We moved our normal 12:15 a.m. deadline up not only to help the sale, but to allow our staff to travel for the holiday.

“The line was steady for at least the first hour,” he told me, and supplied photographic evidence that people do still want to buy newspapers. The capacity of people to stand in line in America still astonishes me.

The final tally from Moonlight Madness Redux: 430 newspapers, Todd said.

Annually the Thanksgiving Day newspaper is our largest seller and the biggest newspaper of the year. This year the Times-News that day checked in at more than 5 pounds of news, sports, features, schedules, comics and ads — lots and lots of ads.

Todd said he would have complete Thanksgiving Day sales figures later this week. I’ll update when I have them.

‘But I can say this: It’s good to see people line up to buy newspapers. Thanks for buying.