news-record.com

In a comment on the post about Ted Kennedy's death below, Brian captures a sentiment that I think many Boomer newspaper readers share. The story about his death should have been played more prominently on the front page, even though it contained no new information and most likely wouldn't even be read. 

I don't really want to read the story: I've formed my opinion about Kennedy a long time ago, and I doubt I'd learn much new....

Still, even when it's off-cycle, even when the event is expected, even when there's little new to say, even if the Thrillerphilics don't care, the death of a major politician should be on the front page. It's a matter of priorities. Kennedy has his fingers all over modern America (civil rights, OSHA, No Child, Bork, etc.), and a newspaper should, IMO, register that publicly.

His observation is a great one because it captures a conundrum that newspaper editors face: When does historical significance trump everything. Normally, we want the front page to contain a good mix of stories with various amounts of news of local importance and interest. In our case, the trump card is normally local. We certainly try not to put stories on the front page that we think most people won't read.

Brian's comment supports the long tradition of newspaper decision-making. And in the old days of, say, 2007, we would have given Kennedy's death a larger presence on the front page. In the last few years, we have been moving away from that tradition. Now we try to provide local readers with a paper filled with information that they don't get elsewhere. Our front page should look different from every other front page of every other newspaper because our community is different from Raleigh or Charlotte or High Point or Boston.

Most days. Was Thursday different? I hear readers saying that it was. Is there another national figure out there who has the longevity (and age) to merit front page play? (I'm not talking about someone dying before his time.) The pope? Elie Wiesel? Sen. Byrd?

As noted, we did not publish much more than a mention of Sen. Kennedy's death on our front page this morning. That caused one reader to send me this note:

The N&R is really just a right-wing rag. Admit it.

Not coincidentally, my friend Steve Buttry, all the way over in Iowa, predicted that reaction when he said via Twitter: Decision not to put Kennedy death on front page will be read as political, not just decision based on timing.

Politics didn't have anything to do with the decision, and to me, being called conservative isn't an insult. But I object to anyone calling us a rag.

The announcement of the news of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death came after 1 a.m., past our last edition deadline. We had nothing in this morning's paper.

Today's question: Is his death a front page story for Thursday's newspaper?

Several people on Twitter told me it is, although it's possible that their minds will change between now and when they go to bed after watching the television coverage all day. Their reasoning tends to be along the lines that he was a towering national figure for so long, he deserves the respect of the front page. I'm not sure I agree with that, but then I'm a disrespectful kind of guy.

Thoughts?

For the past several years, on the first day of school in Guilford County, we had to jump through hoops to get access to school property to report what was going on. School principals would tell us that we had to work through the public relations department in the central office. The central office often judged us "a distraction" and wouldn't let us on a campus. (Oddly, based on the video of kids, parents and teachers that we saw on the local TV news, this ruling seemed to apply only to print reporters.)

In any case, that attitude limited our ability to report to you what was happening on Day 1 for the 70,000 or so Guilford public school students.

That was then.

A new superintendent, a new administration and a new policy. We wanted to visit the most controversial site -- Oak Ridge -- and the school system didn't bat an eye. Administrators told us to go where we wanted and to do what we needed to do. No roadblocks. And this is a system that has dealt with sensitive and contentious issues with Oak Ridge and the recruiting of athletes, issues we've covered closely.

Refreshing change. Credit where credit is due.

What is the difference between edgy and objectionable?

Clark Hoyt posed that question in his Sunday New York Times column about a shopping columnist who took random and snarky potshots at J.C. Penney and its customers.

It's a question that every journalist deals with sooner or later. (And then, they have to make the case to their editor.) You have a good, sarcastic idea and an easy subject and boom, you've written what you think is a clever, maybe even funny, barb directed at someone. You like it. Other writers in the cube like it. You're feeling cutting edge and insightful at the same time.

Sometimes, if you're particularly talented, it goes fine. More often it falls flat and, worse, is mean-spirited and inappropriate.  

When we err -- and we do -- I've heard variations of three rationales: "I was just having some fun," "I was trying not to be boring," and "Everyone I know talks like this." Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Bill Keller, NYT editor, says, "The key, I guess, is to imagine that you are writing for an audience with a broad range of views and experiences, and to write with respect for them."

Me, I say, imagine someone is writing this about you, personally. Is it funny and insightful then? If so, maybe we'll publish it. If not, start over.

Update: See what I mean?

Normally, there is your life, and you turn on the television and there is news, and no matter how grave it is, or how deep in the toilet the world has fallen, or how relevant the information might be to your own existence, your life remains a separate entity from the news. You still have to wash your underpants during a war, don't you? And don't you still have to fight with your loved ones and then apologize when you don't mean it even when there's a hole in the sky burning everything to a crisp? Of course you do. As a rule, there's no hole big enough to interrupt this interminable business of living, but there are exceptions, grim instances in the lives of a few select unlucky bastards when the news in the papers and the news in their bedrooms intersect. I tell you, it's a daunting and appalling moment when you have to read the newspapers to find out about your own struggle.

-- Steve Toltz, "A Fraction of the Whole"

Two good summer interns left us today to return to school. We, and readers, will miss them both. (Fortunately, we have a few of their stories stockpiled.)

Tricia Nadolny is returning to Ithaca College. As her editor, Betsi Robinson said, "She will be sorely missed for her versatility, willingness to take on assignments large and small, and a gift for the written word I’ve seen in few people her age." Some of her work.

Laura Smith, who is equally talented, returns to Elon. She told me that she discovered her life's work this summer. I hope it is journalism. :)

Some of her work.

As more and more discussions among newspaper publishers center on making newspaper content accessible only to paying customers, I've been particularly interested in this idea put forth most recently by Scott Rosenberg.

Instead of starting with the journalism and then out how to support it, start with the plan for revenue, then figure out what journalism might complement it. Recognize that the realm where innovation is most needed is the business side and how it relates to the journalism.... Begin dreaming up, and testing out, approaches that provide a more organic connection between the reporting we need and the income that supports it.

(Link to his inspiration here.)

What if we put all of our newspaper content behind a wall accessible to subscribers or paying customers and created an entirely different kind of community news Web site? What would that new Web site look like?

If you consider that the stories from the newspaper are rarely in the top 10 most viewed stories on the Web site, there may not be a significant loss to those who read us on the Web. Newspaper stories are written to be read in a newspaper; the Web is a different animal and people use it drastically different than they use a paper. So why shouldn't a newspaper have a separate site for those who want to read the paper online and those who want something different. whether it is video and sound, links and/or interactivity?

Let me say right here that we have no immediate plans to create such a multi-headed animal. And I'm not trying to enter the pay vs. free debate. But watching the industry discuss models, it occurs to me that we could do precisely as Rosenberg suggests: Start with the revenue and build the journalism to complement it. Before anyone wails that there are ethical problems or that the idea is a sellout, I think those issues can be addressed and removed.

So, I'm asking you, the users, for help imagineering what you'd want to see on such a site. Does it still include breaking news alerts? Should it include a community aggregator section? Presumably it would have video, but of what? The blogs get a lot of traffic -- keep 'em? Increase them? If so, what topics? Do we voice more opinion and get into more gossipy sort of community-based content? And what do you think about where the revenue comes from? Is it from the users or advertisers or both? (Just for informational purposes, breaking news, crime stories, food stories and the generally odd-ball stories are the most highly trafficked.?)

Again, it's not on the table here, except that it is worth thinking about. Help me think about it.

Update: A wonderful list of possibilities from New Business Models for News. (via Steve Buttry)

An elected official called me today and left an angry message that ended with this question: "Why do you hate Greensboro?"

And he was serious.

He was upset because he thought the newspaper was disrespecting the Wyndham Championship. He didn't like a story we wrote praising the caliber of the field because, he said, it implied that previous fields weren't good. And he didn't like the illustration of Carl Pettersson dressed in paper-doll clothes with the story about how golfers choose their outfits. (Hey, with no one playing golf yet, we have to write about something.)

"He's the past champion of the Wyndham and you put him in that? Everyone in the clubhouse is making fun of it," his voicemail said.

I like the idea of publishing a story and illustration that catches people's attention and creates buzz. The Sports section, after all, is one of the places in a newspaper where you should be a bit provocative; people like to trash-talk sports. True, some things we do appeal to a certain sensibility. But having some fun with -- not making fun of -- a local guy made good to illustrate a story on fashion doesn't seem out of bounds. (He goes through 250 shirts and 40 pairs of pants a season.) To be fair and even funnier, we could have used John Daly, I suppose.

In the end, I think we have been pretty gung-ho on this year's Wyndham. We've published a great deal about the tournament over the past week and obviously have more to come.

But really, why do I hate Greensboro?

Allen writes about the "new" book page at his place.

As a reader, I welcome the change. I'm always looking for new books to read. The New York Times Book Review is a destination section for me. Wandering around the bookstore is a way I kill time.

As a journalist, I welcome the change. It is additional content at a time when we and other newspapers have been eliminating content. Unlike TV listings and stocks, we can bring something special and unique to the book pages. One way is just bring your voices to the page. We're going to start the book page out with your thoughts on your favorite books. Read Allen's solicitation. (It would be nice if Borders or Barnes & Noble or Books a Million would advertise on the page; maybe then we could expand it. Hint, hint.)

I bet Allen that “The Bible” would win out among our readers sending in nominations for their favorite book. (Doesn’t it always?) Me, I’m trying to decide among “Lonesome Dove,” “The World According to Garp,” and any number of Elmore Leonard and John D. MacDonald novels. (No, I can't win the gift card, darn it.)
 

That said, I know you are both book readers and smart people. Please tell us about your favorite book of all time.

Thursday update: I've read a few of your submissions and I'm more excited about this than ever. They aren't the usuals suspects. It's going to be a wonderful list to clip and save solely to provide great ideas for future reading.