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 I’m still wading through the ones that I can do something about and have decided to dismiss those that are no longer valid, with an apology for our failures.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.
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.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 9:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home