Explain Yourself ...

Close to home ...

One measure of news is impact: What does this mean to me?

It's fair to say that many of our readers will have little interest in the realignment of districts announced today by the University Interscholastic League. But for high school students and their families, it is a very big deal. There will be new rivals, and old rivalries will fade. Some schools will have to learn the routes to new stadiums, and some of those are pretty distant. Abilene, for instance, is in a district with Burleson, Richland, Haltom City, North Crowley, Weatherford and Paschal.

Sure, teams and team parents will feel the impact directly. But so will band members and parents (halftime shows, if nothing else), as well as participants in other competitive endeavors.

You'll read a lot more about it online and in the Saturday paper because, by our definition at least, it is important news.

--Rex Seline 

Top 10 stories ...

The Associated Press asks newspaper editors each year to rank the biggest stories of the year. Because news judgment is more art than science, it's never a simple task. Indeed, I could make an argument that the selections say more about the person making the choices than they do about the apparent news value of the stories. But that's a topic for another day.

Want to take your own crack at the ranking? We may ask you for more formal input later in print. But for now, here's the AP ballot. (Pardon me, but it is a long list.):

The AP’s suggestions follow in random order. We’re asking you to pick the top 10 stories, with the first choice being No. 1, the second No. 2 and so on..

—Political crisis in Pakistan: Musharraf declares state of emergency.

--China’s export industry buffeted by cases of tainted toys, toothpaste, other products.

--U.S. housing and home-lending sectors battered by slump; stocks volatile.

—Wildfires ravage Southern California; hundreds of thousands evacuate homes.

—Tony Blair departs after 10 years as British prime minister; Gordon Brown takes over.

--Alberto Gonzales quits as attorney general after string of controversies.

—U.S. dollar falls; Canadian currency more valuable for first time in decades.

—Anna Nicole Smith dies; fight over her burial and baby ensue.

—Severe drought wracks Southeastern states.

—Bangladesh devastated by cyclone; more than 3,000 killed.

—Bush administration assailed over torture, Guantanamo detentions.

—Attempt to forge compromise on illegal immigration collapses in Congress.

—Scientists create equivalent of embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells.

—Intense campaigning in both major parties for 2008 presidential nominations.

—Nicolas Sarkozy elected president of France, vows to strengthen ties with U.S.

—Iran spars with international community over its nuclear program.

—Afghan war: deadliest year since 2001.

—Death penalty under scrutiny as painlessness of lethal injection questioned.

—Supreme Court bans a controversial abortion procedure.

—Military regime in Myanmar cracks down harshly on protest movement.

—Under pressure from critics, Paul Wolfowitz resigns as president of World Bank.

—Methane blast kills 110 workers at Russian coal mine.

—U.S. troop surge in Iraq takes effect: violence drops but does not halt.

—Palestinians feud among themselves heading toward peace talks with Israel.

—Russian President Putin signals he intends to maintain power even after term ends.

—Tropical Storm Noel kills more than 100 people in Caribbean.

—Darfur: Attempts at peace talks falter as violence continues.

—President Bush, Democratic-led Congress at odds over health coverage, Iraq, spending.

—Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez moves to consolidate power, extend rule.

—Oil prices soar worldwide.

—Global warming: new warnings from experts, Al Gore wins Nobel Prize for his advocacy.

—NASA astronaut accused of trying to kidnap rival for affections of space shuttle pilot.

—Duke lacrosse rape case collapses; district attorney ousted in disgrace.

--Gunmen kills 32 people at Virginia Tech; deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.

—Massive wildfires in southern Greece kill at least 65 people.

—Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby convicted in CIA leak case.

—Nancy Pelosi elected first female speaker of the House.

—Revelations of shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

—CBS fires Don Imus from his radio show for demeaning remarks about Rutgers athletes.

—Highway bridge collapses in Minneapolis, killing 13, injuring about 100.

—Barry Bonds breaks all-time home run record, then indicted in steroid investigation.

—Six miners, three rescue workers die at Utah coal mine.

—Earthquake in Peru kills more than 500, wrecks at least 40,000 homes.

—Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick pleads guilty to dogfighting charges.

—Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho refuses to quit despite guilty plea in airport vice sting.

—FBI investigates role of Blackwater USA security firm in killings of Iraqis.

—Plane skids off wet runway, killing 199 in Brazil’s worst aviation accident.

—Koreas: North moves to scrap nuclear program, signs reconciliation pact with South.

-- Rex Seline

Comments on editorials

I’ve been a user of the Internet since the very early 1990s, and the ’net has become only a tool for me – not a source of entertainment or every amusement. But I’m not a Luddite

I love technology and am what some call an “early adapter.” I had the first good video camera among my circle of friends. And I used to videotape weddings for the daughters and sons of friends as a wedding gift for them. Shame that I never thought it could turn into a business or I’d be writing this from Key West. If at all.

But as with many things, there are also downsides to the Internet, or, more specifically, to the way people use it.

It is a gloriously undisciplined and irreverent place and the people who live there are proudly iconoclastic and independent.

And that can be a problem.

Take letters to the editor. For a letter in response to a column, editorial or another letter to get into the printed newspaper, there is a very careful process followed. (And even then, we still get scammed from time-to-time.) But we’re rigid about demanding the name of the writer, the city or residence and a way we can verify the validity of the letter.

Letters that are in bad taste or make no sense or contain known fact error simply are not published. And those that survive the process carry the name of the writer so the readers know whose opinion they are reading.

But consider the Internet.

A famous cartoon in the early ’90s – I think it was in The New Yorker – showed two mutts at a computer. One is saying to the other something like: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

Net citizens will argue that they are known. cutnshoot@somewhere.com is their Internet name. But you can’t track down that person except with some pretty sophisticated techniques that most of us don’t know. So we don’t know whether cutnshoot is male, female, local, knowledgeable or what. Or if he\she is a dog.

And when no one knows who you are, it’s easier to be more aggressive than is sometimes acceptable in polite company.

All of which brings me to readers’ comments on editorials.

We allow comments on most editorials posted online – we’re slowly learning which ones need to be excepted. But we have no way of controlling the comments before they are posted although we can pull them down – which creates even more controversy from people who think they have the right to say whatever they want about whoever they want whenever they want. They do have that right – they just don’t have it unfettered when the newspaper is involved.

Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox made some, shall we say, intemperate remarks about one of the candidates recently in the District 9 council race, raising a gay-straight issue. We wrote an editorial about that, suggesting that perhaps he would have been wiser to keep his remarks to himself.

And the wiseguys went to work on the postings. Eventually, they became so extreme that we pulled the comment box and all the comments – both reasonable and unreasonable – off the editorial. It was not censorship. It was a matter of taste.

It’s a shame because the exchange of opinions is important. But there are some things that we will simply not permit to happen in space that is our responsibility, regardless of whether that space is on paper or electrons.

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Dealing with sad news ...

"Why did you have to report that? Don't you realize that it will hurt the family?"

We've fielded these questions, or variations on them, after a handful of stories. Most recently, we've been criticized for reporting that alcohol was a factor in some accidental deaths. We've been accused of adding to the tragedies by reporting the truth.

First, let me assure you that our reporters and editors are humans. They, too, are touched by the tragedies we cover. But we try to learn coping techniques so we can do our jobs with a bigger goal in mind: pursuing the truth.

For those who want us to shield a family or friends by delaying or denying the truth, it may be helpful to understand our role as a news organization. Our job is to report the news and reflect life in North Texas. That includes the good and the bad. Readers rely on us for that. They use us to learn about their neighbors and neighborhoods. They are warned of risks. The are heartened by successes, and they grieve with tragedies. Some step up to help when they see pain or problems. Some are relying upon us to keep a watchful eye on how their tax dollars are spent.

We could ignore news that upsets some people. But that would present a distorted picture of the world. And if someone doesn't point out the problems, how will they get fixed? What upsets some folks is a call to action for others. Our stories can't bring people back or un-crash crashes. But perhaps they can inspire better behavior in others.

We take our responsibility seriously and we try to handle it with sensitivity.

-- Rex Seline

On Death Row ...

We received a handful of calls this morning about our interview with Chelsea Richardson, the first woman from Tarrant County sent to Death Row. Some of the callers simply expressed their opinion that this woman should be executed sooner rather than later. Others wondered why we gave her "sympathetic" treatment and front-page prominence.

I'm not the right person to express opinions on the death penalty or the timing of appeals and executions. But I can address the second issue: news play and prominence.

I've found that sympathy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. What we see is influenced by our own perceptions and preferences. If an article can provoke some folks to call for an immediate execution, is it really a "sympathetic" look?

Yes, we allowed her to speak. She is miserable and scared. She sheds light on living on Death Row, which is something we don't often see. That makes it newsworthy and interesting. Was this human being persuasive in her misery? Should we feel sorry for her, which is surely what she'd like? Or from another perspective, did her tale of woe give any potential criminals pause? We leave that to you.

But we are very conscious of the fact that she has been convicted in a brutal slaying. However you feel about Chelsea Richardson, we want to remind readers of the Wamsleys, who were killed. That's why you saw their photos on the front page, with an explanation of the brutal killings.

From the news side, we won't take a position on Chelsea Richardson. But when we write about convicted killers, we will not forget their victims.

--Rex Seline 

Taking a punch: Round 2

Rex's post about the movie with a newspaper angle got me thinking about "favorite newspaper movies." They've done the work for me here. You have to scroll down a ways, but there's a pretty comprehensive list with links. No ranking though, so it's got the bad in with the good. Many journalists of my age cite All the President's Men in part as the inspiration for their career choice. Wonder if they'd be blogging today?

_Larry Lutz

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

More Talking in pictures

Coming tomorrow: For the front page we're planning (at this hour) to publish a photo from a medical clinic. The photo was shot in such a way that the person can't be identified. For a reason. See what you think.

Photo decisions, like many an editor makes, can be tough. Here's a couple of examples from elsewhere: An editor explains why he ran a controversial photo. And another editor explains why his paper didn't run a differenct kind of photo.

_ 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?