Readers’ Note: In her most recent column in the print edition of the Raleigh News &Observer, Melanie Sill, the N&O’s executive editor for news, had quite a lot to tell readers. ("Come in; the blog is open")
After finishing the column, I had many questions and decided to ask Sill a few of them at the Editors’ Blog, which is the blog Sill told readers "is open."
I just left the following post/comment at the Editors’ Blog. I’ll be sure to let you know what Melanie says.
John
_______________________________________________________
Dear Melanie,
Some questions about what you told N&O print readers in your most recent column.
You told them:
“The blog has been invaluable for addressing some urgent questions right away. For instance, after we published a front-page story in January saying that West Virginia miners were alive when instead they had died, I was able to explain the error immediately.”Melanie, it wasn’t like that at all. Print readers can see that for themselves if they go to your Sago mine post and read your explanation and the comments that followed.
Most commenters didn’t believe what you said. They offered proof refuting your explanation. Here’s a sample:
Comment from: Stewart Bible [Visitor]Melanie, surely you remember referring to such readers who didn’t believe what you said and made reasoned, fact-based comments as “[f]olks who look for any opportunity to bash us.”
01/04/06 at 16:27
There were plenty of papers on the East Coast who chose not to run unconfirmed reports, or qualified statements as not fact but only report, please see the link you provided and
The Roanoke Times, Roanoke VA
The Boston Globe, Boston MA
The Reading Eagle, Reading PA
The New York Times, New York, NY
The Miami Herald, Miami FL
Closer to home:
The Fayetteville Observer, Fayetteville NC
The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte NC
How could it not be journalistic failure if so many didn't fail?
Ask yourself, "How did these papers get it right?"
Why didn’t you give your print readers an account of what happened at the blog that’s a little closer to the truth?
Further on you told print readers:
"[The blog] exchange differs in tone and substance from other ways I encounter readers -- for instance, through meetings with community groups or phone calls.Just one minute, Melanie.
Many blog commenters are anonymous. Some use insults to make their case."
The overwhelming majority of blog commenters are civil and informed like Stewart Bible above. They frequently expose major errors and bias in N&O reporting and news commentary.
Why didn’t you mention any of that in your print column? Such commenters deserve thanks, not your scorn.
And your print readers, most of whom trust you to tell them the truth, deserve to know what things are really like here at the Editors’ Blog.
You went on and said:
I've found that blogging takes time. People who post questions and comments expect a response, rightfully.Melanie, why didn’t you tell your print readers neither you nor any of the other four McClatchy editors here have bothered to respond to scores of Duke lacrosse questions and commentaries for almost three weeks?
Though there isn't always an answer that satisfies critics, a blog should be interactive.
When readers have asked, you haven’t told them the source(s) of the “vigilante” poster.
You refuse to tell readers whether the Mar. 25 anonymous interview was taped. Why?
You refuse to tell readers exactly how the N&O learned the identity of the anonymous accuser and what conversation(s) occurred between her and/or her representatives and N&O representatives before she agreed to be interviewed.
Why won’t you answer those questions?
After refusing to answer so many questions at the blog, why did you tell print readers the blog should be “interactive” and a place where people “who post questions and comments expect a response, rightfully?”
In truth, Melanie, you should have told N&O print readers most of us who comment and question here would like straight answers but don’t really expect them. We keep commenting because we think it’s important for you and others to know what we think about things the N&O does and doesn’t do.
I’ll close with a comment I made in January that you never responded to. The comment’s as timely today as it was then.
Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com
01/04/06 at 21:24
Melanie,
You say: "There are occasions when we fall down on our responsibilities; this isn't one of them."
Give us a few examples of what you see as The N&O falling down on its responsibilities?
Thank you.
John
2 comments:
Ted Vaden is as good as it's going to get at the Old Reliable. The public editor is there to deflect incoming rounds from the executive editor and her immediate staff. Vaden knows how badly the N&O stumbled in the Duke lax affair, but he also knows, as a career McClatchy employee, that he's in too delicate a position to unload on the company that feeds his bank account.
If MS's blog is anything, it is not timely.
-AC
Post a Comment