The Journal's managing editor has weighed in on the controversial charity story about a 29-year-old woman with ten children (http://freefromeditors.blogspot.com/2008/12/this-story-got-comment-or-113.html) and the nearly 200 comments (95 percent negative) about the subject of the story.
In his skinback, the editor seems to acknowledge that the readers deserved more information on the subject of the story which might have curbed some of the angry reader reaction. He also alludes to the fact that readers, not the paper, dug up the information that should have been included in the original story. He doesn't mention the woman's My Space page, which also outraged readers. (She has a My Space page with a picture of one of her children with the name "baddest b....." next to it. Also, as I suspected, this was not a story initiated by the woman subject of the story.
As always, the paper wants to put a "face" on every story. The reporter searched out someone to tell a charity's story and this was the sad result. It would be forgivable if it didn't happen almost every year. This desire to put a "face" on every story needs a management team that isn't tone deaf to the community it covers or who can't see the obvious questions that will arise before a story is published.
I didn't want comments on the woman herself, and am thankful that I didn't get any, but here is the editor's follow-up to a story that generated so many negative comments that comments to the story were eventually closed. (For the record, I actually agree with the editor that giving is a leap of faith and people in need should not be judged on the lives they have led up to that point. People who need help, need it and we are free to give, or not give, but we are not free to judge.)
http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/12/leap_of_faith_essential_to_hel.html#more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The ME's skinback (was that a pun, Jim? Better check the other definitions of "skinback") is packed with details about four daddies, some child support, state aid, food pantry visits.
Which is exactly what the readers DESERVED in the first story.
All of which raises more questions:
Where was the detail-orientated ME when the story entered the chute of the newsroom word chipper?
Maybe he should write these types of stories in the future, or personally edit them?
Maybe TFJ should stop running "quota" stories and let the actual news value of the story drive the story? (There is a quota of needy stories supporting charities in the runup to Christmas. One a week or so.)
Genesee County folks are among the most forgiving and generous anywhere.
But regardless of race, an unmarried, unemployed woman with 10 children from multiple sperm donors highlighted as the face of need in these tough times shows how tone deaf FJ leadership is when it comes to their readership.
I guess I'm aware of the other meaning of the word. But in a traditional news room sense. The word means a correction or clarification.
Didn't mean to offend.
I think it was deliberate. I think the ME wanted to highlight a Christmas charity case that was so out of whack that he'd rattle cages in cyberspace, including those of the racists. I think that's his idea of provocative journalism -- Sunday's lame attempt at hand-wringing doesn't fool me.
Post a Comment