Duke lacrosse: “Solutions” at The Raleigh N&O Editors’ Blog

Readers’ Note: JinC regular visitors know all about the Editor’s Blog. That was where N&O exec editor for news Melanie Sill used to ignore readers’ questions and comments when she wasn’t providing responses that were often misleading or worse.

Well, there was so much reader complaining, especially about the N&O’s biased, inaccurate and inflammatory Duke lacrosse coverage, Sill couldn’t handle it all. So four senior N&O editors have been brought in to help her out.

The Editor’s Blog is now the Editors’ Blog. But the only real change seems to be that the N&O moved the possessive sign in Editor’s one place to the right.

Otherwise, this “new” Editors’ Blog is giving readers the “same old, same old” treatment they got at the “old” Editor’s Blog.

You’ll see an example of that in the comment/post below which I just left on a post thread where N&O managing editor/blogger John Drescher posted his first Editors’ Blog post.

John

____________________________________

Dear Mr. Drescher:

My name is John and I publish, edit and frequently write for the electronic daily, www.johnincarolina.com, where I comment often on the N&O. I also ask questions and comment occasionally here at what used to be the Editor’s Blog. This is my first Editors’ Blog comment.

I’d like to begin by saying, “Welcome to the blogosphere.” I hope a year from now you feel blogging has been a worthwhile experience.

I noted in your post, “Solutions, too,” that you discussed ways a newspaper could better serve readers. You end with this:

“With the printed paper and newsobserver.com, we have unprecedented opportunity to start a discussion and keep it going. That’s good for newspapers and good for democracy.”

Hear, hear, Editor Drescher! I applaud your words.

But then I went to the comments and found, as of 10:30 a.m. EDT today, Sept. 1, that four of the five comments had been removed from the thread. Where each comment had been there was a notice. Here’s one:

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]
08/30/06 at 09:08
Comment moved to Aug. 18 blog post "Recent reporting on lacrosse case"

I wondered, Editor Drescher, just what these “removed” readers said on your post thread inviting discussion “[t]hat’sgood for newspapers and good for democracy.”

So I went to "Recent reporting on lacrosse case" and scrolled down I guess about 50 comments until I came to Joan Foster’s “removed” comment. Here it is in full:

From Joan Foster:

Here's an opportunity to start a discussion and keep it going..? You might pop into tne Lacrosse thread and answer some of the questions piling up again.

Blogging assumes responses will occur on both sides. There are five of you now...and less interaction than before.

Editor Drescher, I find it hard to believe you would remove Foster’s comment since it’s exactly on point to your post. Is it possible a site administrator or someone else removed Foster’s comment? Stranger things have happened at the old Editor’s blog. Would you believe once an entire comment thread was removed?

BTW – Regarding Foster’s very constructive suggestion that to keep a discussion going you “might pop into the Lacrosse thread,” do you know that as of today its been two full weeks since Melanie Sill or any of you other four McClatchy editors have responded to readers’ questions and comments at “Recent reporting on lacrosse case?” In that time almost 40 questions/comments have piled up.

There are many questions I want to ask you. Here are three:

Did you know of the removals?

Did you agree to them?

Can you think of any justification for removing Foster’s comment from a post thread where an editor invites readers to offer solutions to a news organization's print and online problems?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

P.S. Some of us who comment here have asked for a "preview” option. Melanie promised to take a look at that but nothing happened. Can you help us get a "preview" option?