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.
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.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 5:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home