A News and Information Company

"We can't just be a newspaper anymore. We need to be a news and information company. Online will become the new mass medium, and print will be aimed at settled adults."

Whoa. New concept? Not so much. The above statement from Julia Wallace, editor of Atlanta's Journal-Constitution shows that her paper, along with many others around the world, are being forced to re-think the way their company works.

As Jennifer Carroll, Gannett's vice president for new- media content says, "This is not about moving the furniture around. It is about completely rethinking the way we are going to do journalism."

An article in the American Journalism Review by Carl Sessions Stepp called "Transforming the Architecture" describes what newspapers are doing within their offices to make them more adaptable to this online movement. (Note: the Des Moines Register is mentioned!)

Atlanta's Journal-Constitution is a prime example of this. No traditional desks, no conventional editors, no late-afternoon budget meeting - it's all a thing of the past.

Instead, there are four departments. News and Information, Enterprise, Digital and Print work together to put the paper and the website together. There are constantly informal meetings being held within the departments.

While there are some people with negative feelings about the changes, many others see it as a way of survival. Says the Journal-Constitution's transportation reporter Ariel Hart, who now doubles on the public transit beat:

"This is the key. This is the nexus of everything for me. Thank God we are moving forward. We could be sitting around watching this place be whittled down to nothingness and wondering when we would cease to exist. We have not done that. We have a vision."

I can only hope that we all, as reporters, find ourselves working for a company with a vision.

Editing...cartoons?

Did you laugh when you read Darby Conley's "Get Fuzzy" cartoon? I did. It's one of my favorite cartoons. It's funny, right?



Not everyone thought so. In its normal slot in the Chicago Tribune's funnies section last Friday, Sept, 14, in place of the cartoon shown above, was a nice little note stating that it wasn't running because it "did not meet the Tribune's standards for taste." This apparently stems from the cartoon's mocking representation of mobsters. The Chicago mob? I still don't understand.

I'm not the only one. An article opinion article by the Tribune's public editor, Timothy J. McNulty, addresses this specific censorship.

Jeff Nowak of South Holland, Ill., wrote to the paper and said "that the
only offense is a vague testicular injury joke" and so perhaps the newspaper
should remove its TV listings for "America's Funniest Home Videos" because that
appears to be the theme for such shows.

I didn't find the comic so offensive. I suspect I wouldn't even have
thought twice about it, like most readers, until it was taken out.

On the very same day, Nowak noticed, the "Doonesbury" comic played off the
arrest of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho in a Minneapolis airport men's room and
compared it with the treatment of U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, whose
phone number appeared in the records of a Washington madam. "There's an
important lesson here, son," says the character Duke. "Stick to call girls." The
son replies, "And always pay cash."Isn't talk about prostitution offensive to
some readers?

So why did the editors of the section featuring the comics decide to nix this specific cartoon, on account of it's crude taste? Can you really edit cartoons like you would a story? Apparently you need to...

Editors make daily decisions about everything that goes in the paper,
stories, photos and, yes, comic strips. They never try to be gratuitously
offensive. But, as reader Nowak acknowledged about comics, "The problem here is
that you can't really determine which ones will be offensive to whom."

His solution would be to not "censor" any comics. Sorry, but that would be
abdicating responsibility. Personally, I don't always agree, nor does any other
editor I know, with all the decisions that are made, but ultimately someone
needs to decide.

Someone does need to decide. I was just unaware that this kind of editing happens within the comics section.

Guess you learn something new everyday.

Original story found at Romenesko.

Just a rumor...

The latest rumor on Fidel Castro is that he is dead, for the third week in a row. No one can confirm this and it's the third time in three weeks that it's been rumored. So why is it still buzzing around news rooms?

What if it is true? Who is going to be the first to break the story? It's a huge story.

The race is on. Beat the other guy to the punch.

But, maybe it is just a rumor. No one wants to take the blame for starting that story, if it is just a rumor. But then again, what if it's not.

The traditional panic in the news room has now begun. Verifying every lead and every source they have, credible or not, they work rapidly.

In the past, breaking a story like this could make a newspaper, a television station, or a radio station. They just had to beat the others to the punch.

An article from Poynter Online, Not Dead Yet: Reporting Castro Rumor, by Mallary Jean Tenore and Steve Myers, tackles this issue. I found a specific portion in this piece very interesting.

"Persistent rumors of Fidel Castro's death are testing newsrooms with a familiar quandary: At what point do you report on rumors?

The tradition, of course, is that you don't. Journalists check rumors with official and unofficial sources and only report verifiable information.

Rumors about Castro's death have presented newsrooms with challenges about how to respond. This photo was taken during a March, 1985 interview at his presidential palace in Havana.

But what if bloggers are telling people the Cuban leader is dead?"

What if bloggers are telling people Castro has finally kicked the bucket? (See the Perez Hilton blog) How does a paper present the information then?

The question now becomes how to address it. As a professional journalist, isn't it your job to report the truth? Yes, yes it is. So should you report, without confirmation, that it is indeed rumored that Castro had died?

I feel that Terry Spencer, Florida news editor for the AP, said it best.

"We have to take these rumors seriously, but we also have to take them
with a grain of salt because so far, every one of them has been wrong. But some
day, one of them will be right."

How do you take a rumor seriously, but at the same time, with a grain of salt?

The general consensus from the Poynter article seems to show that where a rumor creates a real response, it needs to be treated as news. The story also warns to be very careful with making certain people understand that it is not verified and is just a rumor.

News is now, but should it be?

When the Pittsford varsity lacrosse player, Jeff Milano, collapsed while warming up for a game on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, his family was immediately placed in a difficult and hard situation. This got even more difficult when he passed away later that day.

Now, we all have experienced grief and what it means to lose someone close to you, someone you loved. That's indisputable.

What most of us haven't experienced is a swarm of media when something tragic, such as this, happens. I know I haven't. When my grandfather suddenly died in January, as a family, we dealt and grieved privately, granted it was no big news story. Without reporters. Without interruption.

I can only imagine that it would be difficult, even frustrating, trying to deal with a death so sudden and tragic while the media and reporters are crawling over each other trying to get to you so they can get the story. Jeff's mother certainly thought so.

Her guest essay, posted by Democrat and Chronicle, exposes a side of journalism that portrays us in a heinous-unfeeling-monsters kind of light. And, from what I read, I don't really blame her.

The world as we knew it had been destroyed... Breathing was difficult; thinking was impossible. We were barely able to stand on two feet.

Interspersed throughout these horrific times was media behavior that was deplorable....

Early Thursday morning less than 15 hours after learning of my son's death, the phone rang in his hospital room. I picked it up to hear a TV reporter on the other end of the line. I almost ripped the phone out of the wall....

These hours were simply hellish. There was no way to escape the horror, shock and intense pain we felt immediately following Jeff's death. But the media's actions during this same time period were indecent, disrespectful and inhumane.

She notes later in the article that The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics does indeed state that we, as journalists, need to:

"Minimize harm ... show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.... Use special sensitivity when dealing with children. ... Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews ... of those affected by tragedy or grief. Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials. ... Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."

And she continues to make the claim that the media, throughout the duration of the tragedy, failed to do just that. Those reporters, she says, invaded and disregarded her privacy when she needed it most.

However, a comment to her essay, posted by Brad, aka "chilledbongo," argues that those journalists were required to blatantly disregard her privacy for the sake of the news story.

Dear Ms. Milano:

I sympathize with your emotional mother's reaction to having been approached for interviews by the news media so soon after your son's tragic death. However, I must take issue with your reasoning that this was wrong.

Let me ask you: When the planes hit the twin towers in NYC on 9-11, would you have preferred that the news media wait several months to let you know about it so as not to offend the families of the 3,000 people who died?

If the president were to be assassinated tomorrow, would you think it best not have this reported for several weeks so as not to offend his family?

I could go on and on. The point is, news is now. When your son died, it was news then, not weeks later. It's shocking to find oneself in the middle. But that is how things work. It cannot and will not and should not ever be changed.

Brad

News is now? I understand that. I understand that nobody wants to read an article 3 weeks from today on a story that occurred yesterday. I sure wouldn't. But that's most definitely not the question raised here.

It's really a simple question of ethics. Did those reporters cross the line in order to get a story? Did Ms. Milano deserve her privacy to deal with her son's death privately? Were there other ways for those reporters to get the story, other than calling Jeff's hospital room?

I feel that the answer to all of these questions is quite simple: Yes.

"News is now" is NOT an adequate excuse to completely disregard the feelings and grief Jeff's family and friends must have been experiencing. There are certainly much nicer, kinder ways to get that story out there for the public And yes Brad, "chilledbongo," whoever you are, even in a timely matter.

Original link found at Romenesko.