After an article in the T&G showed up on Tuesday, a post at No Drumlins appeared, questioning whether the reporter at the T&G might have some conflict of interest.
It got even more interesting yesterday.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm not sure why this is worthy of note. Can you expand on this?
By itself, the article in the paper appears to be unbiased. In view of what's been revealed at No Drumlins, however, the crypto-inflammatory nature of the article tends to leap out at you. That it succeeded is clearly evident in the comments that the article elicited.
It remains to be seen what's actually going on with this, though, so it certainly deserves more attention, not less. I mean, if gun-toting homophobes *really are* making thinly veiled death threats, don't you think that's worthy of note?
People should not be making death threats, and legal action over local message boards is exceptional enough to make a story.
I guess I don't think anything that needs disclosure about a reporter's light participation in a local message board. There may be something here, but the No Drumlins posts don't contain anything that raises my antenna.
"Did she have a duty to disclose that to her editors?"
Why is this even a question???
The trouble with this sort of thing is the missing information. We can assume that we have all the information we need to form an opinion about what's going on, but do we really have all the information? That's why I think the No Drumlins posts are worthy of note, because they're done by someone who's closer to the scene.
I thought it was interesting -- full disclosure, I was a working newspaper person up until a month ago, as Jeff knows -- because it really demonstrated a fine line.
A good reporter keeps her ear to the ground. She listens to gossip in the coffee shop close to City Hall, chats up people in the grocery store and, in the digital age, hangs out on the local message boards and reads local blogs, if there are any in the community she covers. Periodically, she might pipe up if something newsworthy is being discussed, maybe to provide a link to a story or ask if there is someone on the board or blog who might want to be quoted on an issue.
But we're supposed to be impartial, and we're supposed to remember we're representing our paper at all times. I think if my reporter was joking on the message board about her story, and commenting that her editors needed jokes about oral sex explained to them, I'd have to give her a good dressing down... and I'd have to take a good hard look at what else she's been posting on the message boards.
I don't think Karen's participation in the forum is a conflict at all. In the digital age, Internet forums represent a critical area of public discourse and reporters are continually encouraged to join the discussion -- at least to an extent. If I were Karen's editor, I would have no problem with the comments she made -- even her comment about needing to explain a sexual reference. It may have been made with a smirk, but she answered a question as to why that particular part of the letter had not made it into the story. Very appropriate, in my mind.
-Noah
Whether it's actually a conflict is irrelevant. It's pertinent to her reportage in this instance. Full disclosure allows the READER to decide what's relevant.
I guess I don't see how her posting on the forum is pertinent. If she had some official connection to the site or a personal relationship with the individuals identified in the story, that would be pertinent.
For me, as a reader, I don't need for the paper to explain to me that the reporter has posted comments on the site. I find such microscopic explanations distractng. It would be like a Worcester Magazine reporter reporting about the T&G and having to disclose that he or she is also a subscriber or has in the past written letters to the editor to it. If Jeff's blog should find its way into a news story, I wouldn't expect a reporter to disclose that they posted comments on it, either. Such participation in and of itself does not, in my mind, represent support, opposition or or any real connection to the subject. There would certainly be exceptions to the rule, but I personally just don't see it here.
Generally, as a matter of course, I would say Noah has the right idea. Why should a reporter be expected to reveal anything regarding their personal bias, connections, or involvement in elements of any story they might write? I don't see why they should.
But I do find it interesting that a blogger who is closer to the action posted twice about this particular reporter's connection to this particular story. If it was me, though, I wouldn't have posted about it as "a conflict of interest" at all. I would've probably characterized her participation on the message board by suggesting that she "pals around with gun-toting homophobes" or something like that.
Karen has every right to read and post at that forum. As for the alleged comments made by certain Selectmen and people that oppose the Clinton rifle range, thay are just that, allegations that aren't based in fact. These people will stop ant nothing to ruin the reputations of certain proponents of the range...Thats the underlying story.
Post a Comment