Dear Dr. Ink: Why is it that one of the staples of Super Bowl week, as well as Final Four week, is a column slamming the host area? Jim Murray used to have a lot of fun at every city’s expense, but now it seems like all the smart-ass columnists in the country think they can match the master. A San Diego columnist, who apparently is a Murray wannabe bitched, moaned, and whined about the dead nightlife in Tampa. Yeah, so what? Better yet, why does any well paid, pampered columnist think the general public cares if they’re having a good time? Do you agree with me that these kind of slam columns are part of the reason people hate the media, or am I missing something?
Mike Hennessy
Newsradio 970-WFLA
Answer: Dr. Ink is thinking of the advertising slogan, “Often imitated, never duplicated.” So it is with the Jim Murray city-slam genre. If Murray didn’t invent it, he certainly perfected it, and that should be the standard in literature. (That’s what happened to the Elizabethan sonnet.) The doctor has ministered to many sports journalists, and he appreciates how hard they work. Most journalists would wilt under the requirements of travel alone.
That does not excuse the whining narcissism you describe. Framed appropriately, a good insult exchange can be a hoot. Dr. Ink is so down with that, in fact, he knows how to play the dozens: “Your mama is so stank, she makes Right Guard turn left, and Secret tell all!” But the columnists this reader dislikes are merely devoid of good story ideas. They are wasting space on the page and the readers’ time.
Re: Naming Names
Dear Dr. Ink: Readers–and journalists–should understand the difference between an unsigned letter to an editor and an anonymous source in a news story. Your example of the sex-crime victim was, I think, too obvious to provide the kind of guidance your letter-writer was seeking. By convention, rightly or wrongly, most newspapers don’t publish rape victims’ names in any context. But a letter to the editor is an expression of opinion freely made by the writer and offered for publication to the newspaper. An anonymous source is usually a person providing factual information sought by a reporter; few reputable news organizations would allow an unnamed source to express an opinion.
“Half of all politicians are crooks,” would be a perfectly acceptable position taken by a letter writer on the editorial or op-ed pages, but would be unacceptable as an anonymous comment in a news story.
Likewise, “Here are the city financial records showing that half of all politicians are crooks” would not usually be published in a letter to the editor. The paper would assign a reporter to do a story based on the information offered, and the letter-writer may very well end up as an anonymous source in the story saying, “Yes, half of the politicians had the accounting department cook the city’s books to hide their expense-account padding.” Much different circumstances, yes?
Regards,
David Crook, Editor
The Wall Street Journal Sunday
Answer:This reader makes a most useful distinction between the unsigned letter and the anonymous source. It has led Dr. Ink to consider another distinction: the difference between the author of an unsigned letter and the letter-writer who requests that a name be withheld. Our first duty is to public understanding, of course, so the doctor is disinclined to say “never this” or “never that.”
As a general rule, Dr. Ink would not publish anonymous letters. He would, however, withhold the name of the author on request if it is clear that the letter-writer is vulnerable. He would do this on rare occasions when the importance of the message outweighed the negative effects of not printing the name. At least the editor would know the identity of the author, and could vouch for it, even if the name is hidden from readers.
Student in Quandary Queries Dr. Ink
Hi! My name is Leanne and I am a freshman at Winthrop University and I have to write a paper for my Mass Communications class. I have looked over the prompt and I just don’t understand it. My professor wants me to write about consolidation of mass media and the growing concentration of ownership. I do not know what any if this means, and I was wondering if you could help me out. I could really use some good websites to research.
Thank you,
Leanne
Answer Dr. Ink would be happy to explain the prompt to this enterprising student, who was wise enough to call upon the good doctor for help. At one time in America, dear student, newspapers were owned by people who lived in the communities they served. Eventually, the owners began to buy more newspapers in other communities. In effect, those owners became absentee owners.
Over the years, the owners owned so many newspapers, they became known as newspaper “groups.” The people who did not like them called them “chains.” Some of these chains remained privately owned, and some became public, that is, they sold stock in their companies. The chains acquired more and more news organizations, print and broadcast. These companies had names such as Gannett. Some of these chains produce good journalism, and some produce absolute junk.
Back in 1947, a group of smart guys known as The Hutchins Commission expressed concern that news ownership was becoming too concentrated. In their report, A Free and Responsible Press, they worried about this concentration forcing out a variety of points of view. In our own time, huge companies, such as General Electric and Disney, now own news organizations. Here are some of the concerns about concentration of ownership:
- That public companies have to show quarterly profits, which makes it hard to make long-term investments in quality journalism.
- That journalism has become marginal within large media companies.
- That the traditional standards of journalism are eroding.
- That making profits has become profiteering.
- That the “bean counters” have replaced news leaders at the top of news organizations.
Editor’s note: Read our package of essays on Journalism and Business Values to learn more about what news executives think on the subject.
Assignment Editor Seeks Seminars
Dear Dr. Ink: Why doesn’t Poynter offer any seminars or workshops about making split-second news decisions for broadcast assignment editors? Is it assumed that we should already have the necessary tools as working assignment editors to make these judgments? As an AE who recently worked as a print education reporter, I’m finding this job both difficult and wonderful. Any suggestions?
Dorrine Mendoza
Assignment Editor, KNSD, NBC 7/39
Answer: Dr. Ink happily turns over this answer to his great friend Al Tompkins of The Poynter Institute:
AL TOMPKINS: Poynter loves assignment editors. We do teach many “desk folks” in Poynter seminars, especially our one-day workshops. In 2000, I hit the road to teach 15 of those workshops. We are already planning the 2001 tour, which will include workshops in New York, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. and there will be others.
We also teach assignment editors in our “New Leaders in the Newsroom” and Ethics seminars. Our “Reporting with the Internet” seminars would be perfect for AE’s.
For the edification of our print brothers and sisters, television assignment editors are the hub of the newsroom. They usually monitor police radios, track breaking news, manage crews covering planned news, and their “desk” usually fields more telephone calls than any other job. In 2002, look for other mid-level newsroom management sessions that my Poynter Leadership pal Jill Geisler and I will be offering. If any assignment desk person wants to apply for a Poynter seminar and can’t figure out which one to consider, call me. I will be happy to help find a place for you at Poynter.
