Madison Taylor

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.”    

I hate these kinds of stories. Lots of readers don’t believe that, but it’s true.I’m talking about when the Times-News — or any other newspaper for that matter — reports on cases involving child molestation. Add rape and  incest in there, too.I absolutely hate it.

Covering cases such as the one involving the former Graham police officer, which we dealt with over the past two weeks while Kevin Hopkins was on trial and ultimately acquitted, is a no-win situation for the newspaper, its reporters and editors. I wrote more about this in my column this week. This is why we don’t routinely report these cases when they come to court. It happened here because the person charged was a police officer. And so people know, publishing stories like this one don’t sell any extra papers.

But I didn’t feel good about it and no one else here did either — including our reporter Keren Rivas.

Lots of readers felt the same way. One who lives in another town sent me an e-mail asking how I could justify our tabloid style journalism used in this case. I wrote back that the only other option was to not cover it at all.And when I spoke to a group at the Village at Brookwood, a few questioned the placement of the story on the front page day after day. I explain in the column that we based that decision on where the story was placed in 2006 when Hopkins was originally charged. Whether that was the right decision or not was a moot point by now. To remain consistent, we kept the story on the front page – all the way through to the finding of not guilty.

One of our readers over this period was Mr. Hopkins himself. He sent me this e-mail after a story we published just before the trial about new evidence in the case.

—

   I would appreciate it greatly if you would get all the facts before printing an article citing “new evidence”.  That makes it sound like there is more evidence that just came forward and that is not the case at all.  It’s nothing new, only evidence that wasn’t originally released to my attorneys when we filed for discovery a year ago.  I also would like for a front page article when (not if) my name is cleared since anyone can make an accusation and it can make headlines (truth or not). Don’t get me wrong.

I’m not angry with the Times News and I understand you are just doing your job, but you have no idea what the whole story is and how it affects not just my life but the lives of my family.  Especially my son’s life.  I can handle the attacks because of my strong faith in God and my large support group that’s behind me every step of the way.  Other members of my family aren’t as able right now to handle these misleading articles and the rumors that follow. They have been through enough.  I’m just glad the end is finally drawing close so I can clear my name and move on with raising my son in peace.

—

One man at the Village at Brookwood also cited our “tabloid-style” placement of a large photo of Hopkins in our paper the day he testified in court. We had a reason for this, too. That was the first time Mr. Hopkins had the chance to speak in his own defense. It was his day in court after being profiled on TV news and in print for years. We felt it only fair.

Did we err in this case? I’m still not sure. We didn’t set out to cover this matter as a New York tabloid might. But what we are trying to do is develop pages overall with a more bold style, a design that we will use on lots of stories, not just the ones about crime, courts and punishment.

Just as I did in my column I’ll end with this e-mail sent to me by Kevin Hopkins after he was found not guilty this week. This tells me a lot about what our role should be.

— 

I wanted to thank you and Ms. Rivas for the opportunity to clear my name and say my peace.  You both were very professional. I am glad to see people like you are willing to help clear things up in the end instead of only bringing it to the public’s attention in the beginning when I couldn’t talk to anyone.  You did more than Fox8 and WFMY2 were willing even though they didn’t have a problem with plastering my mug shot on TV every morning.