Houston represents solution, not problem
Readers who have a disagreement with this newspaper not only seek a solution to that problem, but they seek someone or something to blame as well.
In the last eight months or so, that blame frequently has been placed on the fact that The Enterprise now is printed in Houston, at the Houston Chronicle facilities.
There have been a great many changes at The Enterprise in those eight months, but virtually all of them have been based on careful planning and serious decision-making. Being printed in Houston is neither to be credited nor blamed.
The move to Houston, which, in the interest of transparency, we announced in a story in our print edition Sept. 30, 2008, was based on a number of factors, including an aging press for all intents and purposes irreparably damaged by water from Hurricane Ike.
But the decision also was one based on economy of scale. The Chronicle, a sister Hearst paper, already had the staff in place and the press time available to print The Enterprise. It was simply a good business decision.
That's also the case with another business effort now underway.
Just as the Chronicle has a press that it wasn't making full use of, we have newspaper carriers who travel throughout the region every morning. These days we are making better use of them as well.
In February those carriers started delivering subscriber copies of the Houston Chronicle and the Wall Street Journal as they made their rounds delivering The Enterprise. A few people, about 100 subscribers, also get their Sunday New York Times delivered by Enterprise carriers. Then in early May, our carriers started delivering Barron's magazine as well.
This week, one more publication joined that list as our carriers also started delivering subscriber copies of USA Today.
Not only does the combined delivery make sense from the standpoint of time and effort, but it is a "green" decision that helps save gasoline and the related automobile- generated pollution.
It is, like the decision to be printed in Houston, just good business.
*
Those of us who are longtime journalists sometimes, unfortunately, reach the state where we are almost on "automatic pilot." We know why we do the things we do and don't take the time to recognize how unusual our actions might seem or to explain ourselves to those outside of the profession.
One such quirk that sometimes raises questions is the fact that our reporters ask for, and publish, the age of people we interview or write about. The practice makes some people uncomfortable both because of the question and because we share that information with our readers.
To answer the two most commonly asked questions: (1) Yes, our mothers did teach us better, but we're now doing what our journalism teachers taught us instead. And, (2) we aren't just trying to be nosy.
Publication of a person's age is considered part of complete identification. Their name and the town where they live are the other two essential elements. Frequently, in the case of legal action, that includes their middle name, which might be a bigger secret than their age.
When we list someone as being arrested, killed or injured in an accident or even participating in a local event, we want to give our readers as much information as possible so they know who we are writing about.
We know there is probably more than one John Smith in Beaumont, so we want you to know it is, for example, John Charles Smith, 41, of Beaumont who received the big award last week.
Years ago, when I first became Reader Representative, The Enterprise featured a story about the position that also was posted on our Web site, where it remained unchanged for several years.
A friend who later saw the online version of the story called, flabbergasted, to say she couldn't believe they printed my age with the story.
Explaining to her the importance of complete identification (though I've never yet encountered another Sheila Friedeck), I told her I didn't mind at all, because the story was several years old.
It was the best way yet to remain eternally young, in cyberspace if not in real life.
In the last eight months or so, that blame frequently has been placed on the fact that The Enterprise now is printed in Houston, at the Houston Chronicle facilities.
There have been a great many changes at The Enterprise in those eight months, but virtually all of them have been based on careful planning and serious decision-making. Being printed in Houston is neither to be credited nor blamed.
The move to Houston, which, in the interest of transparency, we announced in a story in our print edition Sept. 30, 2008, was based on a number of factors, including an aging press for all intents and purposes irreparably damaged by water from Hurricane Ike.
But the decision also was one based on economy of scale. The Chronicle, a sister Hearst paper, already had the staff in place and the press time available to print The Enterprise. It was simply a good business decision.
That's also the case with another business effort now underway.
Just as the Chronicle has a press that it wasn't making full use of, we have newspaper carriers who travel throughout the region every morning. These days we are making better use of them as well.
In February those carriers started delivering subscriber copies of the Houston Chronicle and the Wall Street Journal as they made their rounds delivering The Enterprise. A few people, about 100 subscribers, also get their Sunday New York Times delivered by Enterprise carriers. Then in early May, our carriers started delivering Barron's magazine as well.
This week, one more publication joined that list as our carriers also started delivering subscriber copies of USA Today.
Not only does the combined delivery make sense from the standpoint of time and effort, but it is a "green" decision that helps save gasoline and the related automobile- generated pollution.
It is, like the decision to be printed in Houston, just good business.
*
Those of us who are longtime journalists sometimes, unfortunately, reach the state where we are almost on "automatic pilot." We know why we do the things we do and don't take the time to recognize how unusual our actions might seem or to explain ourselves to those outside of the profession.
One such quirk that sometimes raises questions is the fact that our reporters ask for, and publish, the age of people we interview or write about. The practice makes some people uncomfortable both because of the question and because we share that information with our readers.
To answer the two most commonly asked questions: (1) Yes, our mothers did teach us better, but we're now doing what our journalism teachers taught us instead. And, (2) we aren't just trying to be nosy.
Publication of a person's age is considered part of complete identification. Their name and the town where they live are the other two essential elements. Frequently, in the case of legal action, that includes their middle name, which might be a bigger secret than their age.
When we list someone as being arrested, killed or injured in an accident or even participating in a local event, we want to give our readers as much information as possible so they know who we are writing about.
We know there is probably more than one John Smith in Beaumont, so we want you to know it is, for example, John Charles Smith, 41, of Beaumont who received the big award last week.
Years ago, when I first became Reader Representative, The Enterprise featured a story about the position that also was posted on our Web site, where it remained unchanged for several years.
A friend who later saw the online version of the story called, flabbergasted, to say she couldn't believe they printed my age with the story.
Explaining to her the importance of complete identification (though I've never yet encountered another Sheila Friedeck), I told her I didn't mind at all, because the story was several years old.
It was the best way yet to remain eternally young, in cyberspace if not in real life.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 3:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home