The McClatchy Company, which owns the Raleigh News & Observer, is trying like the dickens to make the Editor's Blog, newsobserver.com and the N&O's print edition better.
Newsobserver.com has just introduced two new features which the N&O's exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, understandably puffed about at the Editor's Blog.
I wanted to help and offered the following comment, the first on the thread where Sill puffed the new features.
I'll let you know what I hear back.
John
___________________________________________________
Dear Melanie,
I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner to your request to readers for our suggestions concerning how to improve the Editor’s Blog, newsobserver.com and the N&O print edition.
It will be wonderful for the community and the N&O if they can all improve. I promise I’ll do what I can to help.
As regards the new features at newsobserver.com, a few reactions:
I “tested” the traffic report feature. I also phoned three friends and asked them to do the same.
My reaction: Very small “contact” points. Can you make them bigger or build-in a feature where when there are delays on a certain section of roadway, its “contact” point is automatically enlarged?
That would make for easier use and would be a great way to call the delay to readers’ attention.
To me and one other friend, the report seemed a little too “busy,” with much detail and many wrap around ads.
Two friends said they would be more apt to use the traffic report if it had an “alternate routes” feature.
One friend is a tech exec who said building in such a feature would be simple.
As regards your “most watched” feature, you say 24 hour and 7 day but you don’t distinguish between the two. I think people will want that. It just makes sense.
I noticed among your most watched as 9:30 a.m. EDT this headline: Two Duke lacrosse DNA tests are positive.
The headline, as you know, leads an 8/2 Ben Niolet story that’s a good “knockdown” of a sham, now fully discredited story the Herald Sun ran the previous day claiming it was reporting on “previously undisclosed [DNA] matches,” when in fact the “news” had been disclosed by the N&O and others almost four months ago. The results in question don’t in any way support what the accuser has said.
So a hat tip to Niolet for his “knockdown” story but the N&O’s headline, Two Duke lacrosse DNA tests are positive, is seriously misleading. It could have served as the lead for the H-S’s sham story.
The N&O really needs to stop its bias against the Duke lacrosse players. Really, you should stop your news bias entirely.
I’m sure when you and McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt talk you discuss how best to engage in interactive journalism.
How do you decide, for example, that you’re going to ignore all the readers’ questions at the Editor’s Blog about the “bald police officer” the cook said was one of his attackers? You know, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.
Or questions about the source of the N&O’s “vigilante” poster; why neither the source or the poster were never even mentioned in the story; and whether the N&O has considered apologizing for publishing it, first and foremost to the players and their families, but also to the community.
The Editor’s Blog , or the Editors’ Blog if you now prefer the plural, will, IMHO, never have the success you and Mr. Pruitt wish for it unless you give honest, fact-based answers to readers’ questions.
One final thought, Melanie.
These last 3 or 4 months the readers here have done a fantastic job of offering news tips, story ideas, and important information. I wish you would pay more attention to them. They can help make the N&O a better paper which, if I’ve correctly understand what I’ve heard and read Mr. Pruitt say, is just what he wants interactive journalism to do.
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
Thursday, August 03, 2006
My helpful comment at the Editor's Blog
Posted by JWM at 10:34 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Cash Michaels wrote an article in the Wilmington Journal entitled COUSIN DEFENDS HUSH MONEY CLAIMS. What I thought was most noteworthy was what he wrote about Sgt. Gottlieb and the alleged assault on a Black cook. Seems that Cash Michaels is more interested in informing the public on this story than Melanie, or anyone else at the N&O:
[begin excerpt] It is further down that Sgt. Gottlieb, who is the supervisor of investigators in the Duke rape case, apparently handwrote "6/30/06 @ 1155 Spoke to Himan. She (the alleged victim) denies same. States cousin is out of loop & doesn't know where cousin is getting it from." Gottlieb's handwritten answer ends there.
[snip]
Regarding the Durham police memo, if the names Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Det. Richard Clayton are familiar to readers beyond the Duke rape case, it's no accident.
Both Durham detectives are still under investigation by their own department's Internal Affairs Unit for their alleged involvement in a reported racial assault on a Black cook in the parking lot of a sports pub in Raleigh on July 20.
Two other Durham police officers were charged last week by Raleigh police for allegedly hitting and kicking the man after racial epithets were exchanged, but published reports say Durham police IAU authorities are probing why at least three-four other non-uniformed officers, including Gottlieb and Clayton, allegedly just watched the affray, instead of stopping it and getting the victim medical attention.
After a short stint of administrative duty while Raleigh police questioned them, both Gottlieb and Clayton were returned to regular duties last week. But Gottlieb also hired an attorney to represent him during the Internal Affairs investigation.
Depending on what that probe determines, the officers could be disciplined, suspended, or even terminated.
Though lead Duke rape case Investigator Benjamin Himan was not involved in the sports pub alleged assault, the very same defense attorneys who released the document to the Black Press have publicly questioned his veracity and conduct in the rape case.
http://www.wilmingtonjournal.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=71544&sID=4
Addendum to 10:18 post: The article by Cash Michaels is from today, August 4.
Cash does not seem to be very supportive of Nifong in this article. What's gotten into him?
[begin excerpt]The lead investigator has been accused by defense attorneys of conducting improper, and possibly illegal police lineups in the case,; omitting alleged contradictions and multiple versions of what happened, and even writing in a report that the second dancer who was present at that lacrosse party that night, Kim Roberts, told him that the rape charge was "a crock."
In a probable cause affidavit dated March 27 from Det. Himan, he writes that after the alleged victim was taken to Duke Medical Center Emergency Room on the morning of March 14 after she claimed she was sexually assaulted, she was examined by a Forensic Sexual Assault Nurse and a physician.
"Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally," Himan wrote.
But after D.A. Mike Nifong turned over several hundred pages of discovery evidence to defense attorneys on May 18 as required by law, they immediately determined in a June 15 motion that Himan did not obtain "medical records and interviews" until April 5, and no medical personnel were legally allowed to release details to him prior because of the federal Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Defense attorneys say the discovery documents show Nifong didn't issue a subpoena for the material records until March 20; it wasn't served until March 21; they weren't printed, dated and stamped for compliance until March 30; and Det. Himan didn't pick them up from the hospital until April 5.
Defense attorneys add that contrary to Himan's March 27 affidavit, none of the medical records obtained confirm the alleged victim's condition as the investigator described.
Neither the Durham police Dept. nor D.A. Nifong has explained the defense's allegation against Det. Himan, who, after four years on the force, became an investigator last January.
Though not specifically referring to this instance, Nifong did tell reporters last week that though he still believes a rape took place,
"Obviously, there were some things we hoped we would have as evidence that we ended up not having," a remark that could be a reflection of Himan's work on the case.
Post a Comment