Technology/tickets: Both create issues

The voice mail message on the Reader Representative line, (409) 880-0748, encourages callers to leave a message and says I will call them back.

For the most part, that is true. Sometimes, if it involves a correction on which I have gotten several calls, I don’t return every call, knowing that the printed correction in the next day’s paper will let folks know I got their messages.

Sometimes, if it involves another department, I pass the information to the proper person, who then takes on the responsibility of returning the call.

Beyond that, I make a sincere effort to return every call.

Unfortunately, several dozen callers now could easily dispute that.

Because I actually have multiple roles and responsibilities at the newspaper, I have two telephone lines in my office. Calls and voice mail messages come in on both and have to be individually answered and cleared.

About 10 days ago, on a Friday, it hit me that a lot of complaint calls seemed to be coming to me from other lines in the building as transferred calls. Then, the following Monday morning there were no messages on the Reader Representative phone line, which is highly unusual.

So began several days of checking and complaining and making it known that we should be concerned about a potential equipment malfunction. It is not without precedent that the first feedback I got indicated possible “user error.”

Any techniphobe who’s dealt with electronics knows that a good percentage of the time when something doesn’t work, it’s the operator’s brain rather than the equipment that is short-circuiting.

After much checking and test voice mails and e-mails throughout the building, the determination was that, indeed, there was a problem, as I suspected.

The voice mail messages for the Reader Representative had been misdirected to a “ghost” voice mail box where they had been peacefully piling up for about three weeks. That might as well be a lifetime in Reader Rep time.

So, I listened to, noted, and handled each and every one of those dozens of messages. I’m still wading through the ones that I can do something about and have decided to dismiss those that are no longer valid, with an apology for our failures.

We will all try to do better. Sorry.
* * *
Trustworthiness is, without a doubt, the single most important characteristic of a newspaper. Our readers’ ability to place their trust in us to deliver their news accurately, completely and on time is what fuels our business.

That’s why we might sell advertising in support of the news, but we do not sell news. It’s why, when there is a full-page advertisement obviously designed to look like news, we insist that it be labeled as “advertising.”

News space is not for sale to a business, to an individual or to a political entity. In order to be a viable, trustworthy news source, we have to be able to publish our stories unencumbered by such commercial strings.

When we decide something is newsworthy we write about it. Similarly, less newsworthy people or events are less written about.

This past weekend, that came back to bite us, or at least nibble at our toes, when a reporter was denied media access to the ZZ Top concert at Ford Pavilion on Saturday night. Our reporter could have walked out and gone to write a story about something else ... like one of the 12 other musical performances listed in our Saturday calendar of events.

Instead, she bought a ticket and did her job. The cantankerous promoter, who made it clear that The Enterprise did not receive press credentials because the three advance mentions we gave the concert did not constitute enough publicity to “earn” a pass, probably would have preferred to deny us entrance. Ford Park officials upheld the promoter’s right to do that.

We could have walked away in retribution for that treatment, but we like to think we behave more professionally than that. The appearance of the group, which in 2005 sold out a concert at Ford Park with 12,000 tickets, was newsworthy. Our readers would expect to read about the concert in Sunday’s paper. So the reporter found a way to get inside the concert and do her job.

We feel pretty good about that. In fact, in many instances, we don’t allow our staff members to accept free admission into events.

Our reporters and editors have to know that they are charged with writing about events truthfully and accurately without pressure from someone who feels they have “paid” for coverage with meals or admission to events.

Promoters might determine who will get access to their events based on advance coverage, but newspaper editors will continue to decide who will get coverage based on news value — not free tickets.

The Enterprise creates one more miracle

The first issue of The Beaumont Enterprise was dated Nov. 6, 1880. It actually published Nov. 7th, a day later. It was a Sunday, which caused outrage among some members of the community because publication was on the Sabbath.

Times and technology have changed substantially since those days of hand-set lead type, but occasionally getting your newspaper to you is a greater challenge than anticipated.

This past Thursday was one of those days.

Ordinarily copy editors come to work sometime around 2:30 p.m. and complete the production portion of their job around 10:30 p.m. They are the people who take all the stories and photos and put them together in a neat package called your newspaper.

There was nothing ordinary about Thursday.

By 6:30 p.m. the majority of the reporting and editing staff had already completed the day’s work, but the copy editors were just getting into theirs. Then the computer system through which we create the newspaper died, crashed, became completely inaccessible.

Of course, being a corporation, we had a backup plan. Problem is the backup plan wasn’t working either.

Almost three hours later, things were getting a bit stressful as we faced the possibility of not being able to produce our Friday newspaper. Plan B became Plan C with personal e-mail addresses becoming the manner of communication.

The computer program remained inoperative until late into the production cycle. We produced The Enterprise three hours past deadline, inconveniencing carriers and disappointing customers, for which we apologize.

In spite of the obstacles, unlike our earliest predecessors, we got the newspaper out on the day it was dated.

Our editor has been known to say that what we do every day is a miracle: pulling together information from many sources, produced by many people; packaging, printing and distributing it within a 24-hour cycle.

Wednesday it took a bit of divine intervention to pull off the miracle. We thank our readers for understanding that, and for their patience.
* * *
Our Friday paper included a large black and white photograph of a Tea Party rally in Arizona, along with an Associated Press story about the national Tea Party gatherings in recognition of Tax Day.

An inset included some additional information about the gathering of Tea Party supporters at Ford Park.

Our original plan called for one of our photographers to take a photo, but that didn’t work out. A reporter did attend and cover a portion of the event as planned.

We reported that was attended by “hundreds,” which, in the first hours of the event, was accurate.

Though we tried to get official confirmation of attendance at the event, neither Ford Park, where the event was held, nor any local law enforcement agencies could provide that confirmation.

In Saturday’s edition we ran a commentary on the opinions page reporting that thousands attended.

A very nice Tea Party participant with whom I spoke Monday told me they actually handed out tickets in an effort to accurately track attendance and they handed out 2,000 tickets.

We didn’t get a lot of phone calls or e-mails about our coverage of the event, though many of the dozen or so contacts were very angry.

What they lacked in quantity of complaints they more than made up for with their elevated anger levels.

Several complained that we did cover the event, expressing the point of view that the Tea Party is too right-wing and serves as an unofficial arm of the Republican Party and therefore should not be covered.

We, long ago, made the determination to consider coverage of such events, recognizing that interest is high enough to warrant coverage in spite of political trappings.

It became clear early in the day Friday that the complaints we were receiving were not from random callers, but instead were part of an organized campaign.

In fact, at one point, one of the nicer callers actually told me that — that those attending the event had been told to call the newspaper (and I’m sure other media) to complain if the gathering did not receive what they deemed to be appropriate coverage.

One very angry woman continually referred to herself as a “good American.” She and several others also threatened cancellation of their newspaper subscription as retribution for our perceived slight.

In the end, I could only tell that angry woman and others like her that I, too, consider myself to be a “good American,” and therefore believe strongly in our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and especially the first amendment allowing Freedom of the Press.

I suggested she might want to support that freedom by keeping her subscription.

Ultimately I, and others here, recognize that is her choice and her right only because we live in a country that allows that freedom.

News pros exercise best news judgment

Among the definitions of news is the reporting of a notable event. The fact that an event is notable elevates it to the point of possibly being considered newsworthy.

At The Enterprise, the newsworthiness of an event is determined, to a great extent, by a discussion of editors in one of several meetings each day.

Just as in most gatherings of coworkers, the editors have different backgrounds and different opinions, but they generally reach a consensus about what should be in the next day’s newspaper and how it should be presented. The one thing they have in common is education and experience that qualifies them to be editors. They are well versed in what is newsworthy.

Their qualifications are similar to what you might expect a minister to have in order to give you spiritual guidance; a doctor to give you health advice; or a butcher to tell you the best way to cook a particular cut of meat.

In choosing a newspaper to read, you also place a certain amount of trust in the editors of that paper to represent your interests as they make determinations about what belongs in that publication. You still can make your own judgments, just as you can tell the butcher you prefer chicken to beef, but we give you the menu from which to choose.

All this leads up to the story of another screaming telephone call that came into the office this past week. The phone actually rang in the newsroom and was answered by an editor who said she literally could hear the caller screaming before she even got the phone to her ear. She immediately transferred the call to me, where the screaming continued.

The conversation (conducted at a very high volume) went something like this:

Caller: I can’t believe that The Beaumont Enterprise put this big article in the paper about a sexual offender. You have a whole page with photographs and stories about a sexual offender in my Beaumont Enterprise. I just can’t believe you did this.

Me: (Trying to slip in a word in the time it took the caller to breathe, while frantically flipping through the Friday Enterprise trying to determine what on earth this woman was screaming about.) I’m sorry, ma’am, but could you tell me what page you are looking at?

Caller: I’m looking at page 1C, where you have more than half a page dedicated to coverage of a sexual offender, complete with a huge photograph.

Me: (Recognizing the caller as one of my “frequent screamers.”) Tiger Woods? You mean the story and photos of Tiger Woods?

Caller: More, elevated, angry screaming about the “sexual offender” and how she is appalled that he is in her newspaper.

Me: Ma’am, he might have behaved in a way that many people would find offensive, but he’s not a sexual offender. That’s a criminal designation. He didn’t behave very well, but he didn’t commit any criminal offenses. He didn’t break any laws and hasn’t been charged with any crime.

Caller: He’s a sexual offender. He committed adultery. That’s against the law. Why is there a story about him in the paper?

Me: Because he is commonly recognized as the greatest golfer in the world and he’s about to return to golfing in the Master’s ---- and it’s the SPORTS page.

Caller: Well, obviously you support this kind of behavior.

Me: (Elevating it a bit because I know from experience that logic won’t work with this caller.) Well, obviously you are pretty judgmental.

Caller: I BEG your pardon?

Me: I can tell you’re pretty judgmental if, by telling you that we ran a story about Tiger Woods because of his golfing abilities that you then leap to the conclusion that I personally support his sexual behavior. I don’t even like golf.

Caller: (Expletive and hang up.)

Yes, it was a difficult call to handle, though being familiar with the caller I saved myself the frustration of actually trying to reason with the woman because I knew it would be pointless.

I also recognize that it was substantially less difficult than the dozens of calls I would have had to handle from sports fans if we had not included a story about Tiger Woods’ return to golf in the pages of The Enterprise.

Newsworthiness: It’s our job. We aren’t always perfect, but for the most part you have to trust that we have reasons for what we do and try our very best to get it right every day.

When we flub, as we sometimes do, give me a call. I’m happy to discuss it with you, in a reasonable tone of voice.

Horse, or its mouth, might verify facts

Journalism, like many other events in life (childbirth comes to mind), frequently looks much easier than it actually is.

Sometimes those short two-paragraph stories take a dozen phone calls and a half-day of research. Sometimes those longer stories seem to write themselves.

One day last week we had an error in a front page caption misidentifying one of the bronc-riding cowboys at the YMBL Rodeo held in conjunction with the South Texas State Fair.

The photographer was absolutely sure the identification was correct. The cowboy had on a white hat and a red print shirt, and his right hand was taped and gloved. Although the cowboy’s face wasn’t shown in the front-page photo, all those identifying features fit another photo where the cowboy’s face did show.

Problem is, he, and more importantly his grandmother, insisted it wasn’t him.

So, over the photographer’s insistence, we started checking. It took two days and some very dedicated and cooperative YMBL members to get at the truth.

When every participant is wearing jeans, a long-sleeved shirt, a cowboy hat and boots, it’s a bit more complicated.

So, how do you identify a bronc-riding cowboy whose face is covered by a white cowboy hat? By the horse, of course.

The rodeo stock contractor identified the horse as “Doc Holiday,” which verified that the cowboy was Shane Chambliss, not Zach Dishman as the cutline said. Our apologies to Dishman, who got a score on his ride and wasn’t bucked off as was Chambliss who drew a no score.
* * *
Then there’s always the true journalist’s axiom: “Trust, but verify.”

Last Friday we ran an Associated Press story about the death of famed oil well fighter Edward “Coots” Matthews. The story contained a paragraph I would classify as ambiguous, called to my attention by staff writer. In reviewing the story, I found another sentence that was completely wrong.

Feeling absolutely certain of the facts, I still did some research to make sure I was right, and found multiple sources that contained the incorrect information, making it obvious that those sources were the ones used by The Associated Press.

We have so many sharp-eyed, detail-oriented readers, it was a bit shocking that not one of them called me to point out the errors. We chose not to include them in the corrections listing for the day because explaining them would be lengthy and somewhat tedious, but we also felt it was something we wanted to share with our readers. So here goes:

The story said “Coots” Matthews and Asger “Boots” Hansen, oil well firefighters known as Boots & Coots, helped extinguish a flare in Algeria known as the “Devil’s Cigarette Lighter” in 1961. Actually the fire started in early November 1961.

The next sentence of the story points out that, “The geyser (of burning gas) was so great, astronaut John Glenn reported seeing it from space as he passed over the Algerian desert.” Problem is, John Glenn made that historic space orbit in February 1962, meaning the dates don’t agree.

An online video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/231727/the_devils_cigarette_lighter/) includes clips from the History Channel that cleared up the ambiguity by noting that the fire was so extreme it took approximately six months to extinguish.

The next sentence, however, puts a good journalist on alert again. “After Iraq’s 1991invasion of Kuwait ...” The fact that we have some staff members who were in preschool in 1991 makes this a bit more difficult, but I happen to know that Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990 — the day my daughter was born.

So, researching for verification, I again found information that incorrectly said exactly what the AP story said. In fact, Boots & Coots were involved in extinguishing approximately 700 oil well fires in Kuwait in the spring of 1991, at the conclusion of the United States’ first, very brief, Gulf War.

Journalism is more of an art than a science and sometimes involves truths that change. Meanwhile we do our very best to be as correct as we possibly can on any given day.
* * *
As the delivery of news and other information generously labeled as news continues to evolve, readers have ways to find out what’s going on in their world. Even mainstream media, such as The Enterprise, now include social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as part of the overall news distribution system and a means to connect with readers.

So now, according to a copyrighted London Times story, enters yet another option, Chatroulette. The site allows video conversations between users by way of webcam. Bored with the conversation? Click “next” and have a conversation with another complete stranger.

The concept was created by a 17-year-old Russian teenager named Andrey Ternovskiy, who’s now the center of a bidding war for what purports to be the next big thing in social networking.

Me? I’m a little nervous about anything that’s Russian and involves the word roulette.