It's a funny thing.
I read Shea Van Hoy's commentary this morning on my iPhone, but it doesn't seem to be there any longer after looking for it on the laptop. Of course, the URL might have changed for any number of good reasons, so I searched using the newspaper's perennially woeful search engine, and there's nothing there, either.
(Here's the correct link; it went back up later in the day. Perhaps one day I'll be able to trust these people again. Right now, I don't):
http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1296862975/VAN-HOY-There-s-a-lot-of-talk-out-there
And here's the text of the commentary, via iPhone. Just in case. Shea even mentions yours truly, because after all, I'm one of the columnists terminated.
Still awaiting that explanation, you know.
---
VAN HOY: There’s a lot of talk out there
SOUTHERN INDIANA — I wrote a column published in Wednesday’s paper noting that the News and Tribune plans to increase the number of editorials and columns from staff members in the coming year. I thought it was fairly straightforward, and still hope the public looks forward from hearing the voice of the newspaper more often.
What I didn’t expect was for the conversation on our website comments to immediately turn to a subject that has been discussed on this page before — our policy for columns from people running for elected office. Specifically, this relates to the former regular column from State Rep. Ed Clere, which was removed after Clere told me he was going to again seek office starting with the May primary, and also held a fundraiser for his campaign. As I have written previously in this space, I appreciate and respect the fact Clere told me this news in person.
What I can’t understand is the vitriol from some readers for the newspaper adhering to a policy that has been in place for years. It’s a policy that has been applied to other candidates who previously wrote regular columns — Roger Baylor and Kelley Curran, who both sought city council positions last year.
Let me restate the policy: If a regular columnist for the News and Tribune decides to run for office in the next election cycle — via filing, holding a fundraiser or simply saying he or she will run — they forfeit their regular space in the newspaper. Continuing publishing the column would be unfair to opponents of that candidate, whether they have declared or not.
I also want to answer claims via web comments on my column that people outside the newsroom had any influence on the removal of Clere’s column. That is untrue. It was a decision made by myself and Bill Hanson, our publisher. It was a very easy decision, actually, as we were simply following our established guidelines.
Our regular columnists make a commitment to write weekly or every other week, and that is much more difficult a task than many realize. If you don’t think so, ask Lindon Dodd, who has written for more than a decade, or even Baylor, who spent far less time as a columnist but told me once that after a while, column ideas can be hard to come by.
That dedication is appreciated by myself and our readers, but column space in the paper is not a right. It’s an agreement that either side can terminate at any time. My goal is to keep the Opinions page as free and open to public comment as possible, but fairness has to be considered when politics are involved.
The final concern from those making comments is a desire to keep up with doings at the Indiana Statehouse. That is important, I agree.
To that end, the News and Tribune has reporter Maureen Hayden at the Statehouse in Indianapolis every day reporting on what’s happening there. That’s not an easy task, either, but Maureen does a fantastic job. We also publish Statehouse stories from The Associated Press and other Indiana newspapers.
We hope you continue to read those reports and stay informed. As always, feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns
— Shea Van Hoy is editor of the News and Tribune. Reach him at shea.vanhoy@newsandtribune.com or by phone at 812-786-5593.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Quoting the column:
"Continuing publishing the column would be unfair to opponents of that candidate, whether they have declared or not."
What a silly "policy." Isn't everyone a potential opponent of any candidate (whether declared or not) in America?
Can't anyone decide to run for any elected office, unless they have forfeited their right to do so by being convicted of a felony? All you need to do is file to run for the office by the deadline.
It's a much sillier "policy" when you consider the newspaper claims to uphold "freedom of speech."
I don't care who they are, or what their party affiliation is, the "newspaper of record" has an obligation to allow all local elected officials the ability to reach their constituents through columns.
What a silly "policy."
I disagree, w&la, but will just note that one of the problems was that the N&T policy consistently applied to every candidate columnist except Clere, a fact his online supporters never seem to address in their complaints of supposed bias.
Now that's silly.
Can you imagine the media telling President Obama he may not expect coverage of his State of the Union address this Tuesday because such coverage "would be unfair to opponents of that candidate, whether they have declared or not?"
The Louisville Courier-Journal seems to be able to overcome its fear of offending and publish articles submitted by McConnell, Yarmuth and other elected officials. Even during election cycles.
In terms of media, the standard for print and broadcast have been different, owing to the latter's use of public air. In that latter case, the opposing party is always granted broadcast time for rebuttal. Daniels is doing it this year.
For what it's worth, the News and Tribune does allow occasional submissions from incumbents a la the C-J.
Does your "all officials" model include all candidates during election cycles? And, logistically, what does it look like? That's a lot of regular columns.
Hey - one of my overarching complaints is that there really isn't a lot of local "news" in the local newspaper.
I've had an ongoing discussion with folks at The Evening News & Tribune about how they have become befuddled as to what their real product is.
They seem to assume their product is newsprint - that is, the stories, the photos and the ink they print on the pages they deliver. That's incorrect.
That's not their real product at all. They actually derive their income from selling readers to advertisers.
If they don't attract readers, they don't make money.
I maintain if they provided more local content of all kind, they might attract more local readers.
To answer you specifically, I feel they should simply allow any and all elected official the right to submit articles, columns, whatever - in a selfish effort to attract local readers to read about what they are interested in and better form their own local opinion(s).
I seem to remember readers of this blog actually enjoying Shane Gibson and Ed Clere discussing mutual and differing topics in their respective articles. That, I believe, is one of the most important roles of a local newspaper.
The reality is that if given a chance to submit articles to The Evening News & Tribune, very, very few of our elected officials would even try. I don't think there would suddenly be a shortage of either newsprint or ink if our elected officials were "allowed" to communicate with their constituents in our local paper. Very few of our officials seem to have the fortitude to sit down and write a column with any frequency at all.
Our local paper doesn't even have the guts to take a stand and write its own editorials. What a waste - owning your own bully pulpit, and not even trying to use it for the public good.
And it's ironic, that their concerted effort not to offend has managed to offend me.
In terms of overall content and intent, I sort of agree, BUT...
I think that model only works if the newspaper itself is fully engaged in public affairs journalism. Simply providing space for content isn't the gig, either. Sifting through content and trying to decipher what's objectively true is.
Otherwise, it's just a newsletter. That it already so often functions that way is what offends me. Allowing politicians even more unchecked space would just make that worse.
Jeff - I agree - but you seem to have already given up. You've been beaten down by years of what you call "newsletter" journalism. The local paper could be better. Will be better, or it will die.
In my model, reporters would report using all 5 W's, editors would edit and readers would read and occasionally send in letters and story ideas.
It's a wheel, and you're right, it takes all the spokes to turn smoothly.
It's so easy to say "we can't allow you to write an article, because it's not fair to unnamed people who may or may not commit to running" - it really lightens your load as a newspaper, doesn't it?
I agree with you - the "model only works if the newspaper itself is fully engaged..."
I haven't given up. I just think the actual journalistic function needs to be in place *before* further opportunities to slant and enchant are granted. Oddly, I've been told by staff in the past that when an N&T journalist points out a misstatement or lie as part of a story, they're editorializing. Amazing, given that not doing it allows news copy to be used for just that.
Bill, this newspaper is not engaged in anything other than generating profits for pensioners in Alabama. We can pretend otherwise, but all of us know it. I appreciate what both you and Jeff are saying, and yet here's a case where it simply doesn't matter.
Realistically, the paper cannot offer REGULAR column space to everyone running for office. That's the problem.
Wow, every time I think I've read it all, I still see gems like this one:
"Can you imagine the media telling President Obama he may not expect coverage of his State of the Union address this Tuesday because such coverage "would be unfair to opponents of that candidate, whether they have declared or not?"
Where did Shea ever state we wouldn't be covering newsworthy events featuring elected officials? Must have been an assumption, like most of what you stated here, it's not even close to how it works but in dreamworld it sure sounds good. There's a huge difference between opinion and fact, and frankly that's something bloggers and elected officials seem to have the hardest time grasping. Most of what you've written here is opinion. The local news thing is just not even true, not even close, as we print no national media stories unless they impact Southern Indiana, same with state wire. I've defended that one so many times I can't do it any more, it's basically like talking to a brick wall. Cheers.
"The local news thing is just not even true, not even close, as we print no national media stories unless they impact Southern Indiana, same with state wire. I've defended that one so many times I can't do it any more, it's basically like talking to a brick wall."
What local news thing are you talking about Daniel? I didn't see anyone make any sort of comparison between local and state or national content in the N&T.
But, since you brought it up, why don't you all run state and national stories? I think some people would be more inclined to read if you did.
It's just not really our niche. If there weren't so many major news outlets next door, I think we'd probably have more national and state stories, but there are ample avenues for coverage of those sectors. I was responding to one of w&l;a's misguided rants. To suggest the courier hasn't been biased is also, well silly. I don't think they've endorsed a Republican who wasn't running unopposed in a decade or so. Honestly they could do to limit editorial pieces for awhile until they get back to covering what papers are meant to cover...news.
But he didn't say anything about bias, either. The only reference to the C-J was that they publish articles submitted by elected officials. Are we reading the same thread?
Daniel - calling my comments "rants" isn't fair.
I do believe your newspaper is becoming more marginalized every day by its own efforts and I've discussed that with Bill Hanson.
To further explain my thoughts -
1) The Evening News and Tribune is not paying attention to their real product (readers that CNHI can sell to advertisers). You folks continue to think your content is your product and that is simply not so.
2) Almost every story in the local paper omits at least one of the "5 W's" in their construction.
The stories in the EN&T would greatly benefit from a reporter turning to someone nearby and asking for their opinion on what the story is about.
I am so tired of reading an article in the EN&T that simply says "There was a meeting at City hall, this was discussed by these officials."
It would be so easy to enterprise such a story by simply turning to an attendee, asking their name and then asking what they thought of what just happened.
In that way, I feel the story would start to get to the "why" part of the story. Otherwise, the newspaper is letting it's readers down and giving City Hall a pass. So many, many stories in the EN&T only mention official's names - not names of the public who attend these many meetings.
PS - if EN&T reporters are not allowed by CNHI to say in a story they feel an official is not being forthcoming, changing their story or is not telling the truth, it's quite easy to walk over to someone who holds a different view and interview them and report BOTH sides of the story. That way you aren't breaking an editorial edict regarding "editorializing" in a story.
Just takes a little more time in asking a few more questions.
Daniel - I feel your article from May 1, 2009, entitled
"Carl Malysz: Environmental study shouldn’t have been released to New Albany City Council - Coffey said contamination is too serious to veil"
hits every point I'm trying to make - that was a great local article, and thank you for the stories you write like that one.
Thats the kind of local reporting that can foster real conversation.
Actually that's pretty good advice, I won't dispute it.
Post a Comment