"Likewise, when was the last time a newspaper ran a story about the increasing share of the news pie being eaten up by online media?"
C-D: Run a search on Vindy.com for "Internet+news" and you'll find 6,648 stories about the Internet's impact on news that were published by this newspaper just since 2001. It's all there from how the Internet is luring away auto advertisements to readers' changing habits. By the way, there are 815 results to "newspapers+decline." Each arrived on our Web site after being published in the newspaper.
Plus: We offer space on Vindy.com to everyone who wants to document how bad of a job we do each day.
Actually, I could bat your soft pitches out of the park all day, C-D. Suffice to say, since you have no idea on how this newspaper operates, it is pointless to pick apart your odd notions of The Vindicator's inner-workings.
I wasn't suggesting that news placement decisions do not include subjective opinions. I was suggesting that to make a case, as Tyler did, that the front page was not an appropriate place for a Traficant story merely demonstrates how easily someone might allow his admitted bias to override a relatively straightforward news decision. Even those who hated the article have found it hard to make the case that a story of a local ex-congressman being released from prison after a nationally televised scandal should NOT be on the front page.
My view: Each edition of a newspaper should be viewed as one part of an ongoing community conversation (which makes taking one day and focusing ire upon it disproportionate in my view). To demonstrate, let's look at the past 72 hours: Because Sunday's newspaper informed the community, the reaction by some readers has caused the Scrappers to scrap the Traficant event.
As I explained to one outraged reader who called Monday morning, if the paper had not published the story, would you be informed enough to be angry right now? Eventually, he agreed and decided he was truly mad at the folks organizing the events. I presume he called them next.
Not sure what Richard Nixon and Rupert Murdoch have to do with all of this. What I do know is that both of the events we mentioned Sunday were being organized whether The Vindicator reported on them or not. What you decide to do after we report (call the Scrappers, pound out an angry blog, kick your dog, yell at the editor, write out a check to "Traficant for Congress," etc.) all falls within the bounds of being an informed member of the community.
Tyler: The article on Traficant has spawned 82 comments online as of 1 p.m. Tuesday, many phone calls and two blogs. Certainly, his release is of much interest, else, like many stories also published Sunday, there would be paltry few comments and no blogs generated.
A1 stories are selected based on what we think would interest the most people in our diverse Valley. We do not select stories based on our long-held editorial views (the editorial page staff does not select A1 stories and we don't tell them what to opine about).
Your view that because you believe someone is an unworthy criminal that news of them should not be on the front page is what separates bloggers from actual newspaper editors. It is OK for you to crusade and promote your opinions and self-interests on a blog, but editors fill a larger purpose (even if that purpose is just to provide you something to rail against).
Traficant's release and life after prison is going to be big news and that will be something that is abhorrent to you. I understand that. Someone else will relish the day. I understand that, too. And likely, as has been the case for the past two days, everyone will criticize us for either over-covering or dredging up too much of the past. I understand that, as well.
At the end of the day, however, newspaper coverage is not aimed at reflecting a given person's very narrow views, as much as we like to provide space - both in-print and on the Internet – for folks to state such views. Purposefully burying a high-interest news item inside the paper merely because its existence reflects ugly truths or a sad history would make someone less than an objective editor. I believe Mr. Russo would call that "managing the news."
We have written a lot of stories since the economic meltdown last fall featuring the stories of many Valley residents trying to cope in the new economy. The Bishops were the one family that allowed us really unprecedented access to their lives. They did not know - nor did we - how this story would end up. We really appreciate their openness and we are happy to see them embark on this latest phase of their lives.
That's a terrific strategy, Stan, if you want to ensure Obama is re-elected. The Republicans tried that in Illinois in the senate primary. "Dismal failure" doesn't begin to describe how well it worked.
TAnthony: I like restaurant.com, too, but NEVER use that site without doing a restaurant.com search on a site like slickdeals.net. Why? Because you'll likely find a 80 percent-off code which will make that $25 certificate that you were going to pay $10 for drop all the way down to $2. In fact, do that right now and you'll find the code DISH for 80 percent off. Enjoy!
GEOMAR: We protect free speech by supporting responsible speech. If you post a view without using objectionable language, threats, etc., it will be allowed for all to see. If you insist on being crass or profane, consider starting you own blog. You will be blocked from our site.
Posted on August 12 at 2:08 p.m.
"Likewise, when was the last time a newspaper ran a story about the increasing share of the news pie being eaten up by online media?"
C-D: Run a search on Vindy.com for "Internet+news" and you'll find 6,648 stories about the Internet's impact on news that were published by this newspaper just since 2001. It's all there from how the Internet is luring away auto advertisements to readers' changing habits. By the way, there are 815 results to "newspapers+decline." Each arrived on our Web site after being published in the newspaper.
Plus: We offer space on Vindy.com to everyone who wants to document how bad of a job we do each day.
Actually, I could bat your soft pitches out of the park all day, C-D. Suffice to say, since you have no idea on how this newspaper operates, it is pointless to pick apart your odd notions of The Vindicator's inner-workings.
I wasn't suggesting that news placement decisions do not include subjective opinions. I was suggesting that to make a case, as Tyler did, that the front page was not an appropriate place for a Traficant story merely demonstrates how easily someone might allow his admitted bias to override a relatively straightforward news decision. Even those who hated the article have found it hard to make the case that a story of a local ex-congressman being released from prison after a nationally televised scandal should NOT be on the front page.
My view: Each edition of a newspaper should be viewed as one part of an ongoing community conversation (which makes taking one day and focusing ire upon it disproportionate in my view). To demonstrate, let's look at the past 72 hours: Because Sunday's newspaper informed the community, the reaction by some readers has caused the Scrappers to scrap the Traficant event.
As I explained to one outraged reader who called Monday morning, if the paper had not published the story, would you be informed enough to be angry right now? Eventually, he agreed and decided he was truly mad at the folks organizing the events. I presume he called them next.
Not sure what Richard Nixon and Rupert Murdoch have to do with all of this. What I do know is that both of the events we mentioned Sunday were being organized whether The Vindicator reported on them or not. What you decide to do after we report (call the Scrappers, pound out an angry blog, kick your dog, yell at the editor, write out a check to "Traficant for Congress," etc.) all falls within the bounds of being an informed member of the community.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on August 11 at 1:42 p.m.
Tyler: The article on Traficant has spawned 82 comments online as of 1 p.m. Tuesday, many phone calls and two blogs. Certainly, his release is of much interest, else, like many stories also published Sunday, there would be paltry few comments and no blogs generated.
A1 stories are selected based on what we think would interest the most people in our diverse Valley. We do not select stories based on our long-held editorial views (the editorial page staff does not select A1 stories and we don't tell them what to opine about).
Your view that because you believe someone is an unworthy criminal that news of them should not be on the front page is what separates bloggers from actual newspaper editors. It is OK for you to crusade and promote your opinions and self-interests on a blog, but editors fill a larger purpose (even if that purpose is just to provide you something to rail against).
Traficant's release and life after prison is going to be big news and that will be something that is abhorrent to you. I understand that. Someone else will relish the day. I understand that, too. And likely, as has been the case for the past two days, everyone will criticize us for either over-covering or dredging up too much of the past. I understand that, as well.
At the end of the day, however, newspaper coverage is not aimed at reflecting a given person's very narrow views, as much as we like to provide space - both in-print and on the Internet – for folks to state such views. Purposefully burying a high-interest news item inside the paper merely because its existence reflects ugly truths or a sad history would make someone less than an objective editor. I believe Mr. Russo would call that "managing the news."
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on August 3 at 10:55 a.m.
Chief:
As we reported July 24: "Dealers must scrap the trade-in cars."
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on July 29 at 9:16 a.m.
We have written a lot of stories since the economic meltdown last fall featuring the stories of many Valley residents trying to cope in the new economy. The Bishops were the one family that allowed us really unprecedented access to their lives. They did not know - nor did we - how this story would end up. We really appreciate their openness and we are happy to see them embark on this latest phase of their lives.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on July 8 at 2:29 p.m.
That's a terrific strategy, Stan, if you want to ensure Obama is re-elected. The Republicans tried that in Illinois in the senate primary. "Dismal failure" doesn't begin to describe how well it worked.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on June 23 at 4:44 p.m.
TAnthony: I like restaurant.com, too, but NEVER use that site without doing a restaurant.com search on a site like slickdeals.net. Why? Because you'll likely find a 80 percent-off code which will make that $25 certificate that you were going to pay $10 for drop all the way down to $2. In fact, do that right now and you'll find the code DISH for 80 percent off. Enjoy!
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on June 17 at 1:23 p.m.
:) Fair point. The bottom line is that tickets are no longer available and we have adjusted the headline. Thanks.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on June 4 at 3:26 p.m.
I meant: YOUR own blog.
Mark
Posted on June 4 at 3:09 p.m.
GEOMAR: We protect free speech by supporting responsible speech. If you post a view without using objectionable language, threats, etc., it will be allowed for all to see. If you insist on being crass or profane, consider starting you own blog. You will be blocked from our site.
It really is as simple as that.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor
Posted on June 2 at 1:54 p.m.
The story is, uhm, repaired. Thanks for the assist, Rex.
Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor