Talking with JinC regaulars - 4 - 13 - 06

(One of a series of posts in the original web log tradition: notes and "thinking out loud." These posts will be most easily understood by regular visitors here and are written with them in mind.)

I've tried to clean up the spam on the comment threads. I don't see any now for posts going back two weeks.

Let me know if you find some and it bothers you.

Spam comes through to me but I have a procedure to "erase" it. I hope it's working.

I promised to post on Churchill's defense in 1902 of a group of cadets at Sandhurst who were collectively punished without due process, including proof of guilt.

I did post on it at The Churchill Series. A newspaper editor picked up on it and asked me to work it into an op-ed.

If it flies I'll post on it.

If Cracker is still visiting here I hope he's now convinced that calling The N&O's Duke lacrosse reporting "prosecutorial" is accurate

On the Duke lacrosse case - - We never go wrong with presumption of innocence, "a charge is not proof," "wait till you have all the facts before reaching an absolute judgment," due process, and the rest. do we?

Those are all important but easily understood principles and practices our parents and teachers taught us. But how many forget or disregard them. The Dl case had reminded us of that.

N&O news columnist Ruth Sheehan wrote Thursday about how complex the Duke lacrosse case is. She's written two previous columns on Dl case.

One in late-March when she attacked Dl players who were only following advice of counsel; and one in early-April demanding Duke "dump" lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. Duke dumped him. A few weeks later we all learned a Duke faculty committee had said Pressler was one of only two people at Duke who had taken reports of unacceptable behavior by lax players seriously.

But no apology from Sheehan to players she helped stigmatize and who's physical safety she helped put at risk; no apology to Pressler, either. Just, gosh, this case is complex.

I plan to answer Sheehan this week.

Also look for more on The N&O's failure to report on the DTH story concerning UNC lacrosse players arrests, etc.

Also, I'm going to say some things about Duke, including the silence of so many of the faculty on matters they should be speaking about.

A number of you comment at other blogs.

I've seen comments by you and others at N&O exec editor Melanie Sill's blog. As you know, I also comment there often

Melanie often ignores fact-based reader questions and comments. Some people then get discouraged and move on. I don't blame them.

But people who stay with Melanie's blog (really a McClatchy Company blog) and continue to comment perform a very important function.

News editors' blog were supposed to be part of the "new journalism:" interactive with readers and transparent to all.

A reader could comment or question; and the editor would respond while, in theory at least, every other reader with net access could "read" the conversation.

Some media experts predicted news editor blogs would result in newspapers that were more in touch with readers and, because of reader comments, quicker to spot, acknowledge and correct errors.

For the most part, it hasn't worked out that way. Most editors have tried to use their blogs as PR vehicles and get huffy when readers point out errors. A while back Melanie referred to such readers as "people who just like to bash us."

Many editors have structured their blogs (again, really their companies' blogs) to limit reader response. Melanie recently did that.

So given all of that, why should readers continue to comment?

Because newspaper blogs really are interactional and transparent. When an editor ducks a question or dissembles when answering, every reader visiting the blog can see what's happening.

When a news editor avoids talking about her or his paper's coverage of an important story, readers can see that. When you think about it, that's a kind of interaction: The reader asked a question and the editor is still responding to it with silence.

Example:

After ducking many Duke lacrosse questions, Melanie Sill told blog readers: "I know I will post again on the Duke situation, thought probably not today."

But she's failed to answer a single reader question concerning The N&O's coverage of "the Duke situation" since April 24, when she made her "probably not today" statement.

That was over 3 weeks ago.

Who can't hear and understand the sounds of Sill's silence

Readers who "drop by" her Editor's Blog can see what's happening but only because other readers are making comments at the blog and leaving questions.

And that's as it should be. Blogs are meant to be interactional and what's said on them, provided it falls within wide boundries of tolerance and avoids commercialsim and threats, is there for all to see.

I like that. I hope you do too. And I hope we all keep commenting.

More soon. Sorry I ran on so long.

John