THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 28, 1996 TAG: 9601260003
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Medium: 98 lines
This past week, some 70 Pilot staffers met for a second round of examining what you, the readers, want and expect from the The Virginian-Pilot of tomorrow.
The Search Committee, as it's called, is armed with readership surveys, a strong commitment to the future and a good deal of newspaper experience.
At some point, I'll write about the committee's findings - and how they jibe with what I've been hearing from readers for nearly three years.
Meanwhile, since I've been busy attending these meetings, I thought I'd share different views on journalistic change by Phil Record, ombudsman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and other ``ombuddies.''
- Lynn Feigenbaum, public editor.
By Phil Record
A number of members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen recently shared thoughts about some of the things we would like to see changed in our business.
I thought it would be appropriate to share some of my colleagues' musings. I will provide my own reaction to their comments.
Jim Stott of the The Calgary Herald in Canada: ``I'd like to see editors and reporters switch roles with readers for one week and read the paper critically and try to bring their concerns (as readers) to editors and reporters. It seems to me both sides could learn something from a role reversal.''
Phil Record - They certainly can. The journalists would come to appreciate how frustrating it can be to be a victim of sloppy reporting. I was the victim of such reporting while traveling around the country as the national president of the Society of Professional Journalists. It hurts. On the other hand, readers would come to appreciate how difficult this job can be when trying to sort out the truth under the constant pressure of deadlines.
Mark Jurkowitz of The Boston Globe: ``My biggest suggestion for change in our profession is that we need to open up the sausage factory to the public. We need to be more candid with our readers about how we make decisions and why we do the things we do and how a newspaper works.''
Phil Record - I think one of the most important goals of this column is to explain to you how this business operates. You deserve an explanation because, whether you like it or not, the news media have an effect on your life. We who view ourselves as communicators have done a lousy job of telling our own story.
Gina Lubrano of The San Diego Union-Tribune: ``I am really bothered by stories and pictures of people mourning. I hasten to point out that this newspaper covers very few funerals, but when we use photos of people grieving the loss of a loved one, I feel we have crossed into a very private area and wonder how much right we have to be there. Is it really news that people are weeping or stoic or somber at funerals? It makes a difference if the person grieving (not necessarily the person who died) is prominent.''
Phil Record - When the Fort Worth Star-Telegram covers a funeral, it is with the permission of the surviving family members. In some cases, the family wants the news media to be present. But if we do not explain this to readers, we will often appear to be callous and intrusive.
Miriam Pepper of The Kansas City Star: ``My wish is that journalists give greater emphasis to `real voices' of people and lessen the reliance on official spokesmen. It would lead to more compassionate story-telling and allow readers to feel they have a stake and a voice in government and business `process' stories.''
Phil Record - Amen!
Jerry Finch of The Richmond Times-Dispatch: ``This one would take a magic wand to cure, but I am continually bothered by the shallowness evident in much newspaper reporting and editorial writing. Largely this condition is the result of the reporter's or editorialist's lack of knowledge of the subject being covered and an inability to think through the issue involved. . . . The problem is fueled by lack of preparation on the reporter's part because of being given little or no time before being thrust into a situation or an assignment.
``However, too many reporters demonstrate an inability to listen accurately and to ask sufficient questions to give them a full understanding of the issue. How many of us, when interviewed by the press, have found our comments distorted, taken out of context and our views misrepresented? Too often a reporter seizes upon a small point and runs off with what is trumpeted as `a good story' rather than the true story. I suppose what all this comes down to is arrogance: that the reporters and editors are convinced they know best what the issue is, how it should be reported and what should be reported.''
Phil Record - You certainly can't say Finch is unwilling to call 'em as he sees 'em. Many journalists share many of these concerns.
I told my colleagues I want to see more journalists bleed over their mistakes. It disturbs me greatly when I see a colleague dismiss an error with a ``So what?'' attitude. Such an attitude breeds other mistakes.
It disturbs me to hear a journalist dismiss an error because it occurred in a minor story and only ``two or three people probably spotted it.'' Compile those ``minor'' errors over a one-year period, and suddenly you have a major credibility problem. We need to bleed enough that we will avoid making the mistake again; we should not bleed so much that it will cripple our willingness to take a risk. MEMO: Call The Virginian-Pilot's public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer
message to lynn(AT)infi.net by CNB