Explain Yourself ...

Changes

We're taking some pro-active steps to improve our newsgathering and presentation, even as American journalism changes around us. We're preparing instead of responding. Today, our editor announced some leaderhsip changes. What it means: We recognize multi-media and online journalism are critical to how we cover news and how we share it. So we're putting two great people who are great journalists in charge of those areas. Here's the new lineup:

KATHY VETTER becomes managing editor/multimedia and will focus primarily on our video and interactive efforts.

GARY HARDEE, who until now was over the editorial operations of the Alliance Newspapers and served as publisher in Arlington, takes over  as managing editor/online.

OK CARTER becomes publisher in Arlington.

Buggy

This spider has really got people buzzing. Our story this morning is far and away the most popular on our website. And after we shared it with the Associated Press, it became a popular stop on other Texas newspaper websites. We don't know what kind of spider it is, though. An Aggie bugman pooh-poohed the story and didn't offer much help:

John Jackman, a professor and extension entomologist for Texas A&M University and author of A Field Guide to the Spiders and Scorpions of Texas, said he receives similar reports every couple of years.

"There are a lot of folks that don't realize spiders do that," Jackman said. "Until we get some samples sent to us, we really won't know what species of spider we're talking about."

So if you know what this thing is, or where there's a similar web site, let us know and we'll post it.

_Larry Lutz

Update: More talking pictures

Another good comment, from a self-described "geek"

Why does the S-T pre-select photos instead of letting the news cycle determine what is relevant to publish on the front page? With the exception of investigative reports—i.e.—the working poor, etc., I thought all photos had to be relevant to the news cycle of the day. (Thursday had only a teaser photo of the   historic 30-3 win on the front but a prefab   to accompany a biofuel story that appeared to have been selected well ahead of time.) Does it just have to do with the redesign?

What we strive to do is prepare _ more than just plan _ a presentation for every day. We don't want our page dominated by "the best of what's available" but by something that's relevant, topical, timely, etc. That doesn't mean we don't respond to news. Sadly, there aren't many days when a news photo in and of itself is very powerful. I hope we're attuned to those days. As to the Rangers question, what you saw was the best photo available (also keeping in mind Sports fans would expect some coverage in that section. Since it was an out-of-town game, our photo choices were limited.)

_Larry Lutz

Talking in pictures

At The Star-Telegram, we believe there many ways to tell stories. One of the most dramatic is with pictures. Everyday, I talk to newsroom colleagues about the "best way" to tell a story. And when we talk about the big picture (sorry, it's a cliche but no pun intended) we talk about context. Do we have a balance of "good and bad," "serious and amusing," topical and in-depth, etc. etc. Specifically: What's the best picture?

Like most decisions, we're often second-guessed. We received a particularly thoughtful email from a reader _ Karen L. Johnston _ that included some thoughts on our photo selection. Here's part of her note:

The photos are too large, and sometimes I find myself wondering, "What is the point of this picture?" You know the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words—well, I’m not finding that true of some of the choices you make for the photographs. Often the photos are just big newspaper quality portraits of people. The purpose of such large photos with no other defining features or action in the photo eludes me. Maybe if you were National Geographic and trying to capture the glimmer of hope, pain, suffering, etc. in the eye of the subject, I’d understand the need for filling the space with such large photos.

In contrast to my complaint about the portraits, the rather large photo from the reopening of the Amon Carter Museum in today’s paper had detail and action and was worth the space devoted to the photo. So, you don’t always get it wrong when it comes to filling what would be print space with photos.

Thankfully, the kind of discussion that Karen started really makes this work interesting: there isn't a formula. We put together the best paper we can each day based on what's happening here. Photo selection plays a big part in that.

We choose photos for a variety of reasons, but chiefly: Do they tell a story in the best way (better than words, say)? Are they eye-catching, attractive, illuminating _ do they bring something extra to the page _ like this one that ran Wednesday:

We chose it for its drama and because it told a story like no few words could have.

Photos serve another, currently more secondary role: They help you navigate around the sea of information each day. There's the start of a discussion about that here on a blog hosted by Howard Weaver, The McClatchy Co.'s vice president for news.

If you want to read the entire column in Slate, it's here.

-Larry Lutz

It looks like the decision for the photo and the size of the photo is based on something other than the news value of the photo. Bottom line for me—many of the large portraits seem like space fillers. Why not establish some decision criteria for the photos based on news value?

Words

You may have missed the story about expanding gambling on Kickapoo Indian land in Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Texas in rejecting a proposal for Las Vegas-style gambling at the Kickapoo’s casino at Eagle Pass on the Texas-Mexico border. It’s one more step in a years’ long fight between Texas and the U.S. Interior Department over regulation of gambling.

But I come not to write about this issue but words. At the center of the dispute is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I don’t know when gambling became gaming, but gaming is the word used repeatedly by pro-gambling interests when they meet with the Star-Telegram’s Editorial Board. Such a minor change – and yet so major. Somewhere, someone who probably makes a lot more per hour than I decided that since so many people object to gambling, perhaps a softer word needs to be used. Thus, gaming.

Some changes in language use make sense. But some are worrisome. When the language becomes too soft, misunderstanding arises and the words become fuzzy if not meaningless.

Many singers change a word in the lyrics of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. It was written “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” Now it is often sung: “... let us live to make men free.” The argument is that we are not soldiers and the change more properly describes the present day. But it changes the meaning of the phrase and delivers a message much, much weaker than the resolve Julia Ward Howe was describing.

Shakespeare asked: “What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” True, but if we called it something else long enough, say, something distasteful. we’ll forget the meaning of the original word.

-- Paul K. Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

The nature of news

The tragedy in Minneapolis presents the kind of challenge journalists today thrive on. If you were "on the grid" last night _ online, watching TV, listening to the radio, etc. _ you had a hint of what had happened. Newspapers can't, by our nature, provide that instant update so common with digital media. We have to be more thoughtful, strategic, deliberate _ call it what you will. At the "new" Star-Telegram, preparation is critical to our daily cycle. We start every day with a plan for the next day's front page. Yesterday, for example, our plan was to present the results of the annual assessment of schools' performance.(The package moved to the local news sections.)  It was a great plan, too, until a big story broke. But news still trumps and today you say the results. Of course we'll be updating all day on the web and plans are already underway for tomorrow's paper.
_Larry Lutz

Burning question

One of the most interesting and challenging decisions we make every day about the front page is: What's the main art? The question-behind-the-question is, what photo/illustration/graphic has high impact, high news value and tells a story. Somedays, that's tough because no one image accomplishes any _ let alone all three _ of those. Then there are days like Wednesday when the choice seems obvious: A marjor explosion and fire in downtown Dallas causes mayhem, injures three, hurtles projectiles hundreds of feet, snarls traffic. A photo of that seems like an easy choice. But when you dispatch great journalists with a variety of perspectives, you get to make some choices. Ours was a photo that showed aftermath, context, perspective and impact. We could have gone with a more predictable _ and still powerful _ fireball. Other Texas papers chose a fireball photo. (this link expires Friday). Oh, and why is a Dallas story on our front page? If you live here and drive there, you know. _Larry Lutz

Wild about Harry

Okay, I’ll admit it. I’m wild about Harry. Several months ago I ordered a copy of the last installment of J.K. Rowling's series about the boy wizard and I’m as eager as anyone to learn Harry Potter’s fate. I am tracking the progress of my copy and as of Thursday, it was in Mesquite. So, I’m hopeful that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be on my doorstep Saturday. <p>

As with any pop culture pheomenon, Harry Potter news is pretty much overshadowing almost everything else happening today, including the Dow Jones retreat from the record 14,000 it reached Thursday, David Beckham and his wife Posh Spice and the disturbing case of Michael Vick and dog fights. Our Web site has a story about how people are lining up a few hundred deep at book stores to claim their copy when the books become available at 12:01 a.m. Some people may shake their head and wonder about priorities, but I don’t see any negatives associated with the fascination with Harry Potter, and certainly none with the idea of reading a book.<p>

It’s true that Rowling is probably writing more for older teens and adults now and that her books are so long that the most recent movies have not been nearly as good as the first two, but Harry has made her supposedly the second richest woman in England after the Queen, so who’s going to quibble. My objective is to perhaps avoid news accounts on TV, in print and online that reveal the ending before I have a chance to find out for myself.

I’m just hoping it doesn’t end with a blank last page and we have to draw our own conclusions. One of those a year is enough.

-- Ellen Alfano

An embarrassing, frustrating and disappointing thing happened on our front page today: We published a photo backwards. It wasn't intentional, but it happened. This beautiful photo of Lady Bird Johnson is what we call "flopped." We requested it from the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center because it captures her spirit, her passion and perhaps her personality. And it's an iconic image that says "Texas" in no uncertain terms. The photo has also been on the center's website _ that's where we first saw it and that's who sent it to us to publish. It's not comfort, but we weren't the only paper to use the photo this way. (San Antonio did the same thing, but the link to that page has expired, so we can't copy that here.) In the digital world, we don't have negatives to check as original source material. In this case, the center's webmaster, a credible source, sent it to us. Often, as in today's case, it's after an editor sees the photo published differently elsewhere that we may wonder if something's not right. There are some telltale signs in the photo, but even those can be deceiving: Mrs. Johnson has a ring on what appears to be her left hand. But a colleague called the photographer this morning and he told us she'd switched it to her right hand after her husband, Lyndon, died. When photos are intentionally manipulated _ clearly not the case here _ we consider it unethical and a breach in our credibility. In this case, the photo's still beautiful but it's just not right.

_ Larry Lutz

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board is feeling its way into the world of online opinion. It would seem to be a natural evolution, giving that so much of what already exists on the Web is opinion based.

But we are creatures of habit and people who follow guidelines and some of what is considered standard on the Web runs against the grain for us.

For example, anonymous comment.

We don’t sign editorials with a writer’s name because an editorial is considered to be the collective opinion of the Editorial Board and therefore not the work, opinion or property of a single editorial writer. In fact, some editorials will have the fingerprints of almost all board members on them. And it is possible that a writer who disagrees with the consensus of board opinion to be assigned to execute the editorial because he or she is most qualified to write it.

As a result, it’s a little hard for us to demand that people who comment on the editorials be named although unsigned comments make us uncomfortable. If you find that a conflict with the paragraph above, understand that I am always responsible for the opinion printed as is the board collectively -- and our names are in the paper on Sunday so the editorial are technically not anonymous.

But then there are letters.

Our letters guidelines are very strict on identification. We do not print anonymous letters and the letters we do print are verified to the extent of our ability.

At present, we have not opened on-line letters to comment for several reasons, some of them technical. But one of great concern is this -- if we do not permit letter writers to be anonymous, why should we permit those reacting to them online to be anonymous? Shouldn’t the rules be the same?

If you feel strongly about something to write a letter, shouldn’t you have to give your name and city of residence? And shouldn’t that same rule apply to those who comment on those letters?

We’ll eventually work our way through this, but I you have an opinion on it, I’d like to hear it. You may post the comments here, or send them to me privately at harral@star-telegram.com

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Hold this photo up to a mirror ......

An embarrassing, frustrating and disappointing thing happened on our front page today: We published a photo backwards. It wasn't intentional, but it happened. This beautiful photo of Lady Bird Johnson is what we call "flopped." We requested it from the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center because it captures her spirit, her passion and perhaps her personality. And it's an iconic image that says "Texas" in no uncertain terms. The photo has also been on the center's website _ that's where we first saw it and that's who sent it to us to publish. It's not comfort, but we weren't the only paper to use the photo this way. (San Antonio did the same thing, but the link to that page has expired, so we can't copy that here.) In the digital world, we don't have negatives to check as original source material. In this case, the center's webmaster, a credible source, sent it to us. Often, as in today's case, it's after an editor sees the photo published differently elsewhere that we may wonder if something's not right. There are some telltale signs in the photo, but even those can be deceiving: Mrs. Johnson has a ring on what appears to be her left hand. But a colleague called the photographer this morning and he told us she'd switched it to her right hand after her husband, Lyndon, died. When photos are intentionally manipulated _ clearly not the case here _ we consider it unethical and a breach in our credibility. In this case, the photo's still beautiful but it's just not right.

_ Larry Lutz

Anonymous comment

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board is feeling its way into the world of online opinion. It would seem to be a natural evolution, giving that so much of what already exists on the Web is opinion based.

But we are creatures of habit and people who follow guidelines and some of what is considered standard on the Web runs against the grain for us.

For example, anonymous comment.

We don’t sign editorials with a writer’s name because an editorial is considered to be the collective opinion of the Editorial Board and therefore not the work, opinion or property of a single editorial writer. In fact, some editorials will have the fingerprints of almost all board members on them. And it is possible that a writer who disagrees with the consensus of board opinion to be assigned to execute the editorial because he or she is most qualified to write it.

As a result, it’s a little hard for us to demand that people who comment on the editorials be named although unsigned comments make us uncomfortable. If you find that a conflict with the paragraph above, understand that I am always responsible for the opinion printed as is the board collectively -- and our names are in the paper on Sunday so the editorial are technically not anonymous.

But then there are letters.

Our letters guidelines are very strict on identification. We do not print anonymous letters and the letters we do print are verified to the extent of our ability.

At present, we have not opened on-line letters to comment for several reasons, some of them technical. But one of great concern is this -- if we do not permit letter writers to be anonymous, why should we permit those reacting to them online to be anonymous? Shouldn’t the rules be the same?

If you feel strongly about something to write a letter, shouldn’t you have to give your name and city of residence? And shouldn’t that same rule apply to those who comment on those letters?

We’ll eventually work our way through this, but I you have an opinion on it, I’d like to hear it. You may post the comments here, or send them to me privately at harral@star-telegram.com

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page