THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 29, 1995 TAG: 9501280005
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J7 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Lynn Feigenbaum
LENGTH: Medium: 79 lines
I have trouble just staying awake during long speeches, but other folks hang on every word. And several were disappointed that the complete text of Tuesday night's State of the Union address wasn't in the newspaper.
The speech was the lead story Wednesday, even with the opening of the O.J. Simpson trial. Lengthy highlights of the Clinton text were in Thursday's paper, but for the full speech, readers were referred to Pilot ONLINE.
``Are you assuming that only people who have computers are interested in seeing the text?'' asked a Chesapeake reader.
A Norfolk woman echoed that concern. ``It doesn't seem fair to me,'' she said. ``This isn't a computer service, this is a newspaper.''
But what is a newspaper? A few years ago, it was just the product you're now reading. Today, newspapers are that and more - they may offer faxes and Internet postings, audiotext information and foreign language editions. Newspapers hold community conversations and tie in to radio and TV newscasts.
Look for more, not fewer, of these supplemental sources of information in the years ahead.
So, back to the question: Should the Pilot and Ledger have run, in print, the full State of the Union speech?
The option was discussed, said editor Cole Campbell. But the speech ran long - 260 inches, more than two full pages without the official Republican response. That had to be weighed against the presumably small number of readers who would want to read the whole thing.
The newspaper highlights were more than enough for me - and even the Chesapeake reader called back to say she was appeased. Still, I can understand our callers' concerns. There's the feeling that, without a computer, you lose a dimension of the news.
Well, that's partly true. But, increasingly, it's a fact of life.
Aside from listening to the lengthy speech on TV, the options were few. You might wheedle your friendly librarian into downloading the speech from the library's on-line service. Or, if you could wait a couple of weeks, you could get the full printed text from Kirn Memorial. But that's not the same as getting it on your doorstep.
All of this reminds me of when the GOP Contract With America first came out. At the time, many newspapers - this one included - didn't print the full text though analyses and critiques were plentiful. Finally, several weeks late, the full text began to appear.
On line or in print, we obviously cannot underestimate the public's interest in governmental doings.
O.J., THE TRIAL. So far, the public has been fairly restrained about our coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.
The one flare-up of controversy was the Jan. 19 Daily Break point-counterpoint, ``Guilty or Not Guilty,'' between Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney Charles Griffith and defense lawyer Andrew Sacks.
Several readers gave their verdict, and it had nothing to do with O.J.'s guilt or innnocence. They felt it was inappropriate to stage a mock trial in the press.
``Anyone can speculate - the butcher, the baker,'' said Regent University law student Kevin R. Taylor. Using Griffith and Sacks ``gives the story an air of legitimacy because they are attorneys, yet they really don't know any more than you and I because they aren't privy to the evidence.''
Certainly, I'd rather see this sort of legal give and take than the usual flash and trash about the O.J. case. But Jeanne P. Wight of Pungoteague saw the story as a ``board game,'' too light a treatment for a crime involving two murders.
``Unless the law is violated,'' she said, ``the judicial system does not interfere in the media's field of expertise. Why then does the media think they have the right to try the Simpson case?''
Other readers simply prefer to ignore the courtroom epic.
Ralph Womeldorf of Virginia Beach had this suggestion: Add a separate newspaper section just for ``the O.J. show,'' away from the ``real news.'' MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net.
by CNB