elsa

Fraud? Really?

When you want to feel better about your job, just remind yourself that you do not have to be the one to face the wrath of newspaper readers who are irate over someone monkeying with the comics. Heaven help the editor who decides to drop Andy Capp or Marmaduke.

In 2002, The Post and Courier asked readers to write in about their favorite comic strips. The editor explained that the staff had found some lively  new strips and wanted to be aware of what readers liked and didn't like so that, some day, maybe, they might make some changes.

More than 3,000 people responded. The paper reported to readers what they liked and didn't like, but changes did not ensue immediately. The poll was really to give the staff insight for when a good change presented itself. If the staff were to become aware of a must-have strip, which one should be the first to go?

And honestly, the editors had some misgivings about the responses because a significant chunk of them were from the same age group -- retired. Retirees had the time to do the poll where other readers did not. It didn't make sense to make decisions based on only one portion of readers.

Readers have  since  expressed disappointment that their personal  suggestions were not adopted. One reader today said the paper was guilty of "fraud." Really. Fraud.

I guess it's always dangerous to ask people's advice if you aren't ready to follow it. It might be worse than not asking at all.

Airplane scares

Two readers. Two opposing opinions. As usual.

The first reader was indignant because she couldn't find a story in the paper about a recent scare aboard a trans-Atlantic flight. A passenger alarmed the crew and passengers of the flight to the extent that it was diverted to Boston's Logan Airport with the escort of two F-15 fighter jets. (Actually, the story was in Thursday's paper and was followed up in Friday's paper. The reader just missed them.)

The second reader was indignant that a newspaper would report on any airline scare in which there were actually no bombs. Reporting on them, he said, is "simply promoting fear."

As a rule, The Post and Courier does not publish stories about bomb scares unless there are extraordinary circumstances. It isn't unusual for a school bomb threat to be called in to authorities around exam time. The  paper does not report on those. It doesn't want to encourage such behavior or to promote fear unnecessarily.

But the trans-Atlantic flight was extraordinary in its scope. I think it was appropriate to report on the story even though it seems now that the woman on board was mentally ill and not a security threat.

Straining the juice

An ongoing story in the local news is about Wallace Scarborough, State House member from Charleston. While staying at his parents' house last month, he fired a gun during a confrontation with two SCE&G linemen. He was jailed on a charge of assault and battery with intent to kill. The charge was dropped.

The Post and Courier reported that story. It was a story that appeared later in a local tabloid that has some of our readers calling. The tabloid story reported that Wallace and his wife are going through a divorce, and it reported on information included in divorce filings. Juicy? Maybe. But newsworthy? I don't think so although some readers do. If the allegations somehow impacted his performance as an elected official, they might become newsworthy.

The Post and Courier published a story clearing up questions about Scarborough's address and his eligibility to represent District 115. In the context of that story, the paper explained that he had moved because of his pending divorce. His new address is also in the district. The story offered no more information about the divorce because it was not pertinent to the issue.

Rapist

Plenty of sex offenders live in the area where The Post and Courier circulates. As a rule, the paper reports on them if there is a problem.

Thursday's and Friday's papers both had front-page stories about a convicted rapist and murderer who moved to Charleston after serving 15 years in a German prison. The former soldier confessed to striking a 17-year-old woman over the head with a hammer and raping her. He also was convicted of attacking and raping three other women.

The first story told readers who he was, what crimes he committed and where he was living. The second story told readers that he had been evicted from the address published Thursday, but the paper was not able to get information about where he had moved.

Editors debated the appropriateness of a third story telling readers where he lives. The paper isn't in the business of dogging someone like this. But readers probably want to know where he is living.
This is an unusual case. In this country, someone with his record would likely remain in jail. Since the paper published the first two stories, I think readers deserve a brief third one telling them his location.

Victims

A brief crime story ("Cab driver pursues man after robbery") in Tuesday's paper has raised an ethical question for the paper.

The story reported that a cab driver in North Charleston who was robbed at gunpoint pursued his assailant and caught him. The assailant has been arrested. The story named the suspect and the victim.

Ordinarily, stories do not name the victim in routine crimes. This time, editors thought it made sense. The cab driver was more than a victim. In some people's eyes, he became heroic by pursuing his assailant.

When he saw his name in the paper, the cab driver was dismayed. He fears retribution by the assailant or his  friends. 

The information came from a police report. The cab driver could  not be reached for comment. Had he been, and if he had requested his name be withheld, the reporter would have agreed. That conversation didn't take place.

This morning, I was invited to meet with a group of men who get together for coffee and converation at  Alhambra Hall in Mount Pleasant . I asked them what they thought. Several said the paper should not have published the man's name. We should have known that doing so could cause him problems.

One, however, had a different view. He said the paper did the right thing. For one thing, the suspect and his buddies are probably  not newspaper readers. For another, the assailant, in all likelihood, knew the cab driver's name as it is posted in his cab. And finally, the information is easily accessible to the public. Someone who wants that information can find it out.

Reporter background

A Stanford University graduate student is writing a paper on whether newspapers should tell readers about their reporters' backgrounds -- their politics, their religion, their affiliation with organizations, their race and their culture. He called to talk with me about it.

While I think newspapers want to be transparent with readers about how they do what they do and why, I have serious reservations about the idea of a website explaining that Reporter John Doe is a gay, white man who voted Republican and belongs to the ACLU.

For one thing, I would be concerned if the newspaper felt it was its business to ask reporters those questions. Reporters are private citizens. They are presumably educated in the ethics of journalism. They know they should not report on issues in which they have a financial or vested interest. They know they should not report on issues about which they cannot be objective. And their editors are trained to examine their work to make sure that biases do not creep in.

For another thing, I cannot see how that information would be helpful to readers. Two people might have grown up in the same rural town in South Carolina, gone to the same church and studied at the same schools but might have nothing in common politically. One is a member of the NRA. One supports gun control.

My experience with readers who call to suggest that reporters have biases is that the biases are often the readers'. In the months prior to a November election, half the callers call the paper a tool of the Republican administration, and half call it a left-wing liberal rag. When I ask readers to present specific examples of bias, most are hard-pressed to do so. (I am grateful when they are able to so that I can address their concerns with the news editors.)

The same happens in sports stories. Clemson University supporters insist the paper is in USC's pocket. USC supporters insist the  Sports department must be painted Clemson orange. Just because the Sports editor went to one college and the columnist to another does not mean they are fans and does not mean they cannot be objective.

I am delighted when readers call to discuss what they see as bias in our reporting. Discussions are generally helpful for both sides. I think listing reporters' alliances and experiences would be misleading and might stymie healthy discussions.

Intrusive photo

I suppose it's a good thing that people are reacting to Monday's story about a young teenager being killed by gunfire in downtown Charleston. This isn't routine news, and I'm glad it isn't being received that way.

The issue today is a photo that was published on 5A with the jump of the story. It showed the child's grieving mother leaving the hospital where she learned that her child had died. Seeing that photo was distressing to one reader. She said the newspaper was intruding into the mother's personal grief, and that it was insensitive and unnecessary.

She raises an interesting point. In this case, the mother was aware that her photograph was being taken. She had spoken at some length with the paper's reporter, and she later offered the paper a photo of her child for publication. But the reader did not know that, and the reader was left with the impression that the paper was being insensitive.

Certainly, the newspaper decision-makers want to be sensitive to individuals and to the community at large. They give extra scrutiny to photos of personal grief, trying to weigh possible discomfort to the subject of the photo against the photo's value to readers. For example, this photo demonstrated very clearly to readers that the child who was killed was not just a shooting victim. He was someone's beloved child -- someone whose death is more than a police report. It is a tragedy. Some mothers would want that story told. Others would not.

Blogging journalists

Beginning now, when I post a comment on a blog, I will add my last name. (I am already identified by my first name.)

Why? It's something I think I should do as a journalist.

There is no standard rule of ethics for journalists contributing to blogs anonymously, although there probably should be. A recent flap in Colorado helped me make a personal decision. It involved speculation that an editorial writer for the Denver Post, using a pseudonym, had made multiple comments, some of them rather rough, on a political blog not sponsored by his newspaper.

In a story at Westword.com, he said his work regularly appears anonymously on the editorial pages of the newspaper. He also said he has contributed to online bulletin board systems for years. The chief editorial writer there, however, said he is not comfortable with a newspaper writer commenting on a non-newspaper blog about an issue and then possibly contributing to a newspaper editorial on the same subject.

I gave up some things when I went into journalism. I don't put political bumper stickers on my car. I don't lend my name to political fundraisers. I will not likely post comments on political blogs, either. But when I do post comments on blogs, it will be clear who I am.

Elsa McDowell

Reporting race

Ron doesn't agree with The Post and Courier as to when to report the race of someone wanted for a crime. He thinks it should be included routinely. That information would make the story more real to him.

The Post and Courier reports race when it can also report enough other descriptors to make that information useful to readers who might recognize the person. To say police are searching for a white male wouldn't help readers in that regard. To say police are searching for an Hispanic female, mid-30s, five feet four inches tall with a scar on her left cheek might be helpful.

Keith M. Woods, dean of the Poynter Institute, explains the ethical issue: "Race/ethnicity, as a descriptor, is not truly information beyond allowing the audience to lump people into social groupings. It is valid in stories about race/ethnicity – stories about racial conflict, interracial marriage, some Census stories. But as a descriptor, it only eliminates those clearly not in the racial group, while frequently making suspects of nearly all of those in the implicated racial group."