Read Through

By Rusty Turner, Editor

The Morning News

Twice within the last month, stories reported by Arkansas media outlets citing “anonymous” or “unnamed” sources have proved to be just flat-out wrong. One outlet reported in early December that Tommy Tuberville of Auburn had agreed to become Arkansas' football coach. The other, reported out of Central Arkansas, said that a sports agent had arranged the purchase of a car for Darren McFadden, jeopardizing his eligibility to play in the Cotton Bowl.

The parties involved denied the stories immediately and both turned out to be false. But they both were picked up and disseminated by other news outlets.

High profile blunders like these always focus attention on the controversial practice of basing news reports on “unnamed” sources. Such a source can be a useful tool in the tradecraft of news reporting. But the practice can also lead to disaster, hanging a news agency that gets burned out to dry and damaging its credibility.
Each newsroom must make its own decisions about the appropriate way to use an unnamed source. At The Morning News, there are numerous guidelines in place to help editors decide when to use, and more importantly, when not to use, a source who doesn't want his name associated with his information.

We claim no moral superiority over news organizations with different or less exacting standards. But we do want to explain what we do to our readers, so that they will know what they're getting when we use a source we've promised not to identify.

We should clarify that none of the sources we use are “anonymous.” That is, when we cite a source in a story without a name, editors at The Morning News know exactly who he is. We don't report anything from people we can't identify and judge their credibility.

We may get a tip about something from someone we don't know. But that tip won't get into print without verification. Most anonymous tips never see the light of day, either because they're wrong or they can't be corroborated. Oh, we always check them out. But few produce stories.

What we're really talking about are sources we know who ask that their names not be used in print. This is a request that we rarely grant. We want our readers to have as much information as possible about the news we report. That includes the identity of people providing us with information.

If, however, we deem the information important and credible, we may grant such a request, under the following conditions:

First, a reporter must reveal to the editor or managing editor the identity of the source requesting that his or her name not be used. That way, more than one person can evaluate the source's credibility and establish whether the source has access to the information provided.

Second, there must be a valid reason for the request. For example, revealing the source's identity may adversely impact his or her employment or family. In some cases, crime or abuse victims we interview are not identified to protect their privacy.

Third, the source must have first-hand knowledge of the information he provides. We don't want to know what the source's brother-in-law heard or saw. We want to know what the source heard or saw.
Fourth, the information needs to be verified by at least one other source.

Finally, protecting someone's identity is the only way to get the information we're reporting.

Understand that, while we're confident these standards guide us to the right decisions about our reporting, nothing is perfect. Mistakes can still occur, and circumstances can change quickly. If we have doubts about the credibility of our information, we won't use it.

We've been late on some stories because of these standards. But we've never been wrong because of them. If we're wrong, it's the information that's bad, not the process.

We want our readers to know that on one of those rare occasions they see The Morning News cite an unnamed source, we've taken a number of steps to insure that what we're reporting is the truth.

Posted by Rusty Turner at 01:35 PM | Permalink

The newspapers in Arkansas vehemently oppose a policy approved last summer by the Arkansas Activities Association that would essentially cede control of photos taken at high school sports playoff events to the association. See the story here: http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/11/05/news/110607azplayoffpix.txt

The need for the policy, the association claims, stems from complaints from parents of student participants who are approached by professional photographers at games to buy photos of the event.

The real reason, however, is that the AAA and few high school athletic directors around the state think there’s money to be made selling photos to parents and they want a piece of the action. This policy would help the AAA corner the market.

In order to control how photos are distributed, the AAA cooked up a “licensing fee” and intends to charge every photographer shooting a game, even photographers covering for local newspapers.

Of course, newspapers object to being charged a fee to cover legitimate news events. No paper we know of intends to observe any restrictions the AAA claims to place on images it doesn’t own. Most newspapers offer their photos for sale to the public after publication, but those sales amount to very little money and are really more of a convenience for readers than profit centers.

The greater issue for newspapers is control of the image and access to the events. The AAA is technically a private, nonprofit organization. However, it is largely funded by dues paid by public schools and virtually all of its events are held on public property. Basically, tax dollars are the lifeblood of the activities association, so it should behave that way.

Prior to the offending policy, the AAA already had the power to prevent commercial photographers interested only in public sales from shooting their events from the field or the floor. It has for years issued credentials to newspaper photographers for access to its events. Simply observing its previous credentialing policy would have accomplished the association’s stated goals.

A week ago, it looked like the state’s newspapers and the AAA were headed for a courtroom showdown. The AAA either ignored or casually dismissed press concerns. Finally, just days before the start of the AAA’s biggest annual event, the high school football playoffs, the organization agreed to delay implementation of the policy and sit down with newspaper attorneys to at least hear what we had to say.

Perhaps cooler heads will prevail and the AAA will come to its senses.

Many newspaper executives found it disturbing that the AAA board approved this policy last summer with nary a word uttered to them. Newspapers invest thousands of dollars each year covering high school sports and AAA events — what amounts to free publicity — and no one at the AAA even bothered to pick up the phone or send an e-mail. Then, when word finally leaked out about what they’d done and newspapers voiced concerns, AAA officials responded with a resounding “so what?”

Some initial cooperation could have solved this problem before the controversy moved to the courthouse doorstep.

 

Rusty Turner

Editor 

Posted by Chris Dunivan at 10:40 AM | Permalink

By Lisa Thompson
Managing Editor, The Morning News

A caller wanted to know this morning why local media failed to report the bomb scare at Fayetteville High School on Thursday, which apparently led to officials emptying the school, searching backpacks and extending the lunch hour.

The lack of publicity seemed odd, the caller said, in light of the large presence in print and broadcast of the flour scare on the downtown square earlier this week.

The guideline — because there aren’t many rules in this business — is generally that we don’t report bomb threats found to be unfounded if it doesn’t cause a large disruption in a public area. The thinking by us, schools and police is that the publicity will reward the person making the threat and possibly encourage others to do it.

So, a threat at a high school that only affected high school students went unreported by the media. The students were told what was going on and parents were emailed.

A mysterious, white powdery substance found around Fayetteville’s downtown square that closes blocks of the city for hours during the workday and pulls law enforcement help from towns away? That gets reported, even though it, too, was unfounded.

Posted by Chris Dunivan at 01:28 PM | Permalink

By Rusty Turner
Editor, The Morning News

I got quite a chuckle out of a recent press release from an outfit called Media Matters which said that conservative opinion dominates American newspaper editorial pages.

I found several things funny in the press release and the accompanying report that breaks down the survey  used to come to that conclusion. The first was the premise itself: That all columnists can be so easily characterized and that the selection by editors reveals something about the newspapers who use them.

I’m not saying that it’s hard to tell whether George Will is a conservative or Al Franken is a liberal. Syndicated columnists are actually marketed to editors that way. But what about “libertarian” columnists, who appeal to conservatives with their theories about limited government and fall in line with liberals when it comes to free speech and social issues? How are they classified? Columnists’ opinions can’t all be jammed into a particular box the way Media Matters would like.

I was also amused by the clear agenda in the press release. Somehow, people were supposed to be shocked or horrified by these particular findings. Perhaps liberals (or “progressives,” as Media Matters prefers) were. I would guess that conservatives were incredulous. Those of us in the newspaper business greeted the news with a shrug of the shoulders and an eye roll, because we all know what Media Matters is.

It calls itself a progressive web-based organization dedicated to correcting the inaccuracies promoted by the “conservative” media. In other words, it is a liberal mouthpiece. And if its self-description sounds familiar, it is. It is strikingly similar to that of Accuracy In Media, a “grassroots” watchdog organization dedicated to setting the record straight when the “liberal media” botches a story.

Neither of these organizations offer anything close to an objective view of the performance of the media, because both have clear agendas to criticize differing political thought and defend like political thought. Both these groups, and others like them, are simply propaganda machines working for their own causes and against each other. So, Media Matters’ claim that American newspapers offer little “progressive” balance on their op-ed pages is no more valid than Accuracy In Media’s long-held belief in the monolithic liberal media.

I laughed the hardest, though, when I got to part of the Media Matters report dedicated to Arkansas daily newspapers. The report scores each newspaper’s op-ed content on how progressive or conservative it is. The Morning News’ score? One-hundred percent conservative.

That sound you hear is local Republicans gasping and area Democrats saying “Huh?”

Here’s how Media Matters came to that score, and here’s why its survey and report are worthless:

A survey interviewer called our editorial page editor, Tom Sissom, and asked him to participate. Tom agreed and was asked which nationally syndicated columnists we regularly use. Tom gave him the list — George Will, Ann McFeatters, Marsha Mercer. We also use other national columnists on occasion, but not on a regular rotation. During the course of the conversation, Tom said that he will sometimes replace a McFeatters or Mercer weekly column with local letters to the editor, or a strong guest column. George Will, who provides two columns a week, may also get replaced on occasion, but he gets published at least once a week no matter what.

So, since Will’s column is the only nationally syndicated offering we publish at least once every single week, and because he’s a conservative, that’s the only column that counts in the survey. Hence our “perfect” conservative score.

Media Matters showed no interest in Morning News and Stephens Media staff columnists or our regional syndicated contributors — John Brummett, Brenda Blagg, J.C. Watts, David Sanders, Doug Thompson, Steve Barnes, etc.

While Media Matters acknowledges its survey only accounts “nationally” syndicated writers, it completely dismisses the comment on national issues from local folks who frequently write about them.

In the grand scheme of things, Media Matters’ silly survey and overwrought press release mean very little. Frankly, I don’t really care what Media Matters (or, for that matter, Accuracy In Media) thinks about our editorial page and opinion content. But this survey, at least as it pertains to The Morning News, is misleading. The opinion offered in our publication is not 100 percent anything. We look for balance and a varied selection of viewpoints. That’s the best way to spark debate and exchange ideas.

Media Matters, Accuracy In Media and their ilk aren’t interested in debate or the exchange of independent thought. They’re interested in promotion of their own views. As a firm believer in the First Amendment, I’ve got no problem with that. I do want our readers to understand, however, the difference between what those organizations do and what newspapers do.

Posted by Rusty Turner at 07:47 AM | Permalink

Our business causes us to deal with important news stories that are also very disturbing. Finding the right way to tell an accurate and complete story and at the same time, show respect for the victims of tragedy or crime is a work in progress. Add to that the sensibilities of our readers — the community standard about what’s appropriate — and our job becomes even more daunting.

It is difficult to know when the line of “too much information” is crossed. We can say with certainty, however, that we don’t take the task of balancing these concerns lightly.

In our recent coverage of trial involving a particularly heinous sexual assault, a number of readers found our coverage too graphic. They worried that the details we reported would “re-victimize” the victim and that a less thorough — and therefore less disturbing — account would have been sufficient.

I won’t repeat those details here because this blog is not about that particular incident. It’s about how we make difficult publishing decisions and upon what standards those decisions are made.

From the newspaper’s perspective as a chronicler of local events and a mirror for the community, we blanch at any thought of withholding information. Who wants a mirror that doesn’t show an accurate reflection, even if what we see upsets us? Indeed, don’t we use a mirror to determine if there is something in our appearance out of place?

Details complete the picture of what we report, whether that’s a high school football game or an horrific crime. In the latter case, details can have a specific and significant impact on matters of great public concern — the administration of justice and the assurance of public safety. For example, details about a disturbing crime give insight into how well a jury or judge does the job of determining guilt, or in setting punishment.
Details of a disturbing incident shed light on just how quickly such a thing can happen — how vulnerable people can be. The crime in this particular case was made more shocking because it took place outdoors near a very public place. Explaining how it happened may serve as a way for others to learn to protect themselves or their loved ones.

But we also realize crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. People suffer in the wake of such tragedies and revisiting the details, we understand, is most assuredly painful. That’s one of the reasons that our newspaper — and most other media outlets — withhold from publication and broadcast the names and personally identifiable information of sex crime victims. Many believe we do this because the law requires it. But in reality, the law can require no such thing because of the First Amendment. Newspapers and other media withhold this information to limit the effect that such a personally devastating crime can have on an individual.

None of this means, however, that we’re always correct when we decide to publish such details. It is indeed a fine line, one that is easy to cross. In this particular case, our reporter did leave out details she believed were too disturbing for print, but chose to included other unsettling facts in order to paint the most complete picture possible. Her editor considered what was included and decided not cut any of it, believing that we had achieved the right balance.

Obviously not everyone agrees. We welcome the comments from readers who took exception, because it keeps us in touch with our community. We deal with “bad news” a lot, so we are aware we can become inured to graphic and distressing details. Hearing from our readers counteracts that conditioning and reminds us that every situation is different and deserves consideration.

We simply have to weigh each story, each set of facts on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind both our responsibility to relate a complete and accurate report and our desire to be sensitive to and respectful of those caught up in such awful events.

I can’t promise that we will never print details of a crime that will disturb our readers.  But I can promise that before doing so, we will have had a serious conversation about whether we should. And I can promise that no information will ever be published simply because there is some perceived commercial value to disseminating outrageous details of a terrible crime.

 

Rusty Turner

Editor 

Posted by Rusty Turner at 04:11 PM | Permalink

Benton County Senior Circuit Tom Keith gave a little ground Friday in The Morning News’ fight to open up the hearings and documents related to a high-profile murder case.

The judge, who had previously sealed virtually all the documents related to the case and held at least a portion of one hearing out of earshot of the public, loosened his grip on many of those records. He amended his previous order to say that all future filings will be open to public review. If attorneys in the case believe that some paperwork should be sealed, they must submit it to the judge in advance. The judge will then decide whether any, some or all of the filings should be shielded from disclosure. And, the judge promised to review pleadings and transcripts already part of the record and to unseal what he could.

That was good news, as far as it goes. However, the judge says he still intends to hold private hearings related to two issues in the case because, as he has stated before, they relate to information so inflammatory that the defendants wouldn’t be able to get a fair trial if it were disclosed.

It’s hard for me to imagine what that information could be, especially when you consider what’s already been disclosed regarding these defendants. They are accused of the road-rage murder of Daniel Francis, who was shot to death in May 2006 while riding in car traveling on U.S. 71B. One of the defendants is suspected of having gang ties. One is in the country illegally. The scenario painted by prosecutors is of a random, violent crime on a busy street in broad daylight.

Judge Keith, a former journalist, says he is conflicted about this ruling, that he understands the arguments for open proceedings very well. I take him at his word.

But I still have grave concerns about the example this ruling sets, and whether the specific circumstances in this case call for such drastic measures.

 

Rusty Turner

Editor

The Morning News 

Posted by Rusty Turner at 03:21 PM | Permalink

Many factors affect whether a defendant gets a fair trial in a criminal case. Among the most important are: a competent attorney; an attentive and objective judge; an ethical adversary for the state; a thoughtful and serious jury; and a courtroom open to the public.

Some of you may stop short at that last observation, but consider for a moment why public access to a criminal trial is not just preferable, but necessary for the successful administration of justice.

In an open courtroom, the presence of the press and the public provides a disincentive for mischief and a forum to evaluate the performance by the parties to the case. It holds judges, attorneys and even jurors accountable for their actions. It provides insight for the public into how one of its most powerful government institutions operates. It informs the community, and not just through press coverage, about the process and outcome of trials, which often determine the fates of friends, family members and neighbors.

The impartial administration of justice demands openness in court proceedings. It is not a luxury to be casually dismissed in favor of other factors that play into whether a defendant gets a fair trial.

And that's why The Morning News has asked Benton County Senior Circuit Judge Tom Keith to reconsider his decisions to close portions of hearings and seal certain documents pertaining to an ongoing high-profile murder case. On Friday, our attorney, Brandon Cate, will argue that the public and the press have a First Amendment right to be present at the court proceedings in this case, and to review the documents pertaining to it.

The case in question involves the murder of 32-year-old Daniel Francis of Rogers in May 2006. In what has been characterized as a road-rage incident, Francis suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the head while riding in a car on U.S. 71B. The incident occurred in the middle of the day on a heavily traveled road. Three people, Serafin Sandoval-Vega, Manuel Comacho and Roxana Hernandez, face murder charges. Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty for Sandoval-Vega and Comacho.

Keith had ordered that court documents related to the case be sealed, blocking anyone other than parties to the case from reviewing them. He also conducted a portion of a hearing at the bench with lawyers present, out of the hearing of anyone else. He's conducted several meetings with attorneys in the case in his chambers. And, he has declared his intention to continue to close portions of hearings to the public due to information he says is so inflammatory that the dissemination of it would prevent the defendants from receiving a fair trial.

Obviously, no one other than the parties to the case knows what this inflammatory information is. However, this case has enflamed passions since the moment it became news.

It touches on hot button issues of great interest in the community: Hispanic defendants accused of a random crime against a non-Hispanic white victim. News reports indicate that at least one of the defendants may have gang ties and that some of them may be in the country illegally. Add to it that the victim was the father of young children and it's easy to see why there is such high interest in the outcome of this case.

Keith, a former reporter and a judge with a reputation for favoring openness in court proceedings, worries that if too much information gets out, a jury pool will be so contaminated that no amount of care in jury selection or instruction can “un-ring” the bell - that potential jurors won't be able to avoid making judgments before trial.

However, the bell has already been rung on a number of inflammatory points. If a jury pool can be damaged beyond repair, perhaps this one already has been.

We'd submit, though, that reasonable people who understand the important role juries play in the administration of justice are out there in our community, available to consider the merits of this case based on the judge's clear instructions and the evidence presented in court. And, even if that's not possible, the court has the option of moving the case elsewhere, where potential jurors are not as well acquainted with the case.

Our request for a hearing before Judge Keith to make these points and ask him to change his mind falls in line with a newspaper's goal to observe government and report its actions to the citizens, and to ensure that public business be accessible to everyone.  Our request pertains both to this one specific, high profile case, and to the greater concept of the importance of an open and accessible government in a democracy.

———

Your right to know hasn't fared too well in Arkansas as of late. Last year, the state Supreme Court made it more difficult for an average citizen to hold government accountable to the state's open meetings and records law. In a ruling that still baffles us, the court made it more difficult to recover attorneys' fees when a citizen wins a complaint against a government entity withholding public documents or meeting in private. This will have a chilling effect on a private citizen's willingness to hold a government body accountable, and will embolden those public employees eager to work behind closed doors to hide from taxpayers.

Then, in June, the court blew it again, ruling that e-mails sent and received via state owned computer equipment might be exempt from public disclosure if the contents are of “a personal nature” and don't have to do with public business. This marks a significant lowering of standards because it eliminates one of the most powerful checks against a public employee abusing state-owned and operated computers for personal business.

And, this month, the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office has made it known that a new administrative order from the Supreme Court will make it more difficult for the public at large to review documents in a timely manner.

The new administrative order, set to go into effect at the end of next year, claims as one of its purposes to make the access to public court documents easier. If the Washington County Circuit Clerk's interpretation of the order is accurate, it will have the opposite effect. The rules the local clerk says are necessary to satisfy the administrative order will delay, perhaps by days, the availability of court documents to the general public.

This is not just a problem for newspapers and electronic news media, it's a problem for many other citizens who need access to court records.

The administrative order in question, Administrative Order No. 19, fills 34 type-written pages. Only a group of lawyers needs 34 pages to tell the public how “easy” it is to have access to public records.

Expect a fight over this ridiculous rule, and not just from the news media.

Rusty Turner
Editor
The Morning News

Posted by Rusty Turner at 12:33 PM | Permalink

By Lisa Thompson
Managing Editor

We’ve received quite a few comments and questions from readers about our decision last week to publish on our Web site the two videos from Arkansas State Police cars of the fatal shooting of Erin Hamley by Trooper Larry Norman.

I’ll try to answer address them.

The toughest decision, of course, was whether to publish them at all. Our standard here, generally, is to be informative without being offensive to the average viewer.

But there are exceptions.

I and five other staff members working on the story that day watched the videos, more than once, from start to finish. It was hard to take, even for journalists like myself who’ve been around a while and seen accident and crime scenes that were hard to take.

My first call was to edit the videos so that we ended the one from Norman’s car right at the shot and start the video from Trooper Short’s car after Erin is hit with the bullet, editing out the actual moment of impact.

Then we discussed that some.

These videos were the unadulterated story of what happened. Until their viewing, the public had only been able to speculate about how much blame, if any, Norman should shoulder for his actions that day. The public needed to judge his actions because the trooper killed Erin in our name. We employed the man, gave him a gun and sent him out to protect us. I recalled the two grand jurors interviewed after Norman was indicted. They both said the videos were what cinched the indictment.

It came down to a question of ethics for us and perserving our credibility with you. We don’t alter photographs because to do that is to alter the news. If we edited something out of the videos, we would be altering the information and the viewers would have grounds to question the validity of the information remaining.
So we put a warning on the link and published the two videos given to us by the prosecutor’s office, unedited. We did use a common software program to raise the audio back to where it was originally after the publishing compressed the audio and made it lower.

We did edit out several minutes of Norman driving to the scene, but once the video starts on our site, it goes through to the end of Norman’s video then the video from Short’s car plays in its entirety.
There were videos from the three Washington County Sheriff’s Office cars at the scene, but the story was the shooting and the shooting was captured by the State Police videos.

Posted by Lisa Thompson at 10:52 AM | Permalink

By Rusty Turner

Editor, The Morning News

 

After several months of frustration, we've finally upgraded our web comments feature to require registration before posting. That began midweek last week.

Prior to that, anyone could comment on a story immediately without having to register or otherwise identify themselves. While this often led to a free-wheeling debate, it also opened the door for internet "Trolls" to turn our story comments into profane tirades or sophomoric attempts at humor. Despite our efforts to encourage posters to follow our guidelines regarding foul language, false identifications and personal attacks, some just couldn't resist a "free shot."

We tried to police the comments and take down the offending ones as quickly as possible. But there got to be so many that we weren't able to keep up. Inappropriate comments were staying live too long, and we needed to make a change.

Initially, the options provided to us by the company that provides our website platform were to turn off comments all together or require registration to view anything on the site. Neither of those options served our website's purpose, which is to provide the best source of information about Northwest Arkansas on the web.  Comments had become quite popular, and truth be told, the vast majority of the comments posted were fine. We didn't want to spoil the party for the folks playing by the rules simply because a few posters had no respect for them. As for sitewide registration, well, we've never required that and didn't think our regular cyber readers would appreciate it.

Finally, our provider was able to allow registration for comments only. We implemented it immediately. This discourages trolls because they no longer have an absolute veil of anonymity. And it allows us to communicate more directly with posters when they run afoul of our policies. This has eliminated most of our problems.

Of course, we realize some folks will still try to beat the system. For that, we can simply cancel the account.

The bottom line is that there may be fewer total comments on our site, but the ones that are there can contribute to the conversation our readers want to have without having to wade through juvenile rants, ugly insults or bathroom humor.

Immigration In The News

For several months, our staff has been working on a package of stories called, "Immigration: Perception v. Reality." In it, we tried to seperate myths about the local immigrant population from the facts. That package was published Sunday, May 13, as part of a special section. It can also be viewed by clicking on the logo at the top of our home page.

We identified 10 common assumptions about the local immigrant population and examined them through interviews, document research and observations. We anticipate that almost everyone will find something in the report that makes them nod their heads in agreement AND shake their heads in anger. We let the facts take us where they would and didn't try to push the story in a particular direction.

I think we did an excellent job of clarifying the real issues. Take a look at the package to see if you agree.

 

Posted by Rusty Turner at 12:26 PM | Permalink

By Rusty Turner, Editor, The Morning News

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to the blog. I have no good excuse except to say that blogging will take some getting use to for me.

Here are some quick comments on events of the last two weeks or so:

TEXT MESSAGES

Much ado has been made on message boards and blogs about Arkansas Football Coach Houston Nutt's cell phone and text message records, which were reviewed and circulated by unhappy Razorback fans.

Our paper has done a fair amount of research on this topic, but written only a few stories. The records we've seen don't add up to much of anything that would warrant a story. When Nutt spoke publicly about the controversy last week and a lawsuit was filed this week, we did publish some stories, plus an editorial on the subject.
 
Obviously, we'll follow the progress of the lawsuit. And, as always, we'll continue to gather information. We will also make sure our reporting does more than flood the reader with information without any context, attribution or verification.

KATIE AWARDS

The journalism world is buzzing about a scandal involving the once-prestigious Katie Awards. Presented for the last 48 years by the Press Club of Dallas, the Katies are supposed to honor excellence in print and broadcast journalism and public relations for media members in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Louisiana and New Mexico. The Press Club puts on a snazzy banquet each year to present the awards and raise money for college scholarships.

Here's the scandal: The former president of the press club hasn't been able to provide the names of any judges for the last two years' worth of awards. It appears to the new president that neither contest was actually judged and he surmises that the winners may have been chosen randomly by the former president — that is, except for the four won by the former president.

The former president has been fired from her PR job, the Press Club and its foundation are in turmoil, the 2007 Katie Awards are in jeopardy, and disenchanted winners are preparing to return their Katie statuettes in protest.

The Morning News entered a handful of categories in the Katie Awards in the last two years, and made finalist in at least one category in each. We didn't win, which, at this point, is a bit of a relief. We won't have to pack up any trophies to send back or explain nervously to readers that those honors we bragged about are bogus. We, however, do have some interest in getting our entry fees refunded. I suppose the matter of the $150 we spent on tickets to send representatives to the 2006 presentation banquet is a lost cause.

Fortunately, the one Katie Award we do have predates the scandal (1999's award for our participation in the statewide FOI Project) so we can feel good about keeping it around. It took us six years after that win to decide to enter the Katie Awards again. Looks like we may be waiting a while longer this time, too. 

Posted by Rusty Turner at 02:46 PM | Permalink

By Rusty Turner, Editor, The Morning News

I heard from a couple of readers about my first blog. Here’s what they asked and how I responded:

One reader thought it interesting that, in a blog about what we won’t allow in reader comments on our web site, I used some of the same words and expressions that would get a post deleted.
(I, of course, didn’t use those words in the context of expressing an opinion; I used them as examples of what we don’t want on our site).
I thought about the potential irony before posting my blog, but I decided it was best to be specific. We’ve had a number of posters contact us after their comments were taken down who just wanted to know where the lines are drawn. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate that. I hope no one was offended.

Another e-mailer asked why we don’t require posters to use their real names when adding a comment to a story. We don’t have the technical capability to impose such a requirement. And besides, there is nothing that would prevent a poster from making up a name, or worse, using someone else’s — just like a few do now.
We’ve discussed the possibility of requiring posters to register e-mail addresses before adding comments, but we want to keep the site as accessible as possible. A lot of internet users don’t like or trust required-registration sites, so we’re not inclined to take that step. That’s not to say that we won’t do it eventually if bad comments get so out of hand that we can’t keep up.
I should also point out that any time we see a post that purports to be from someone well-known, we take it down immediately. If that person lets us know that it is his or her post, we’ll put it back up. We’ve yet to have that happen.

Finally, let me add one more item to the list of things that get your posts taken down: advertising. If a post appears to have the sole purpose of promoting a web site or retail product, it goes.

On a different topic, some readers may be interested to know we’re going to have the Morning News sportswriters who are covering the Razorbacks in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament do a blog from the game sites. The Hogs play Southern Cal Friday night, and our blog entries will start Thursday. They will continue until the end of the team’s tournament run, whenever that will be.
Keep an eye on our web site at nwaonline.net for a link to the NCAA tournament blog.

Posted by Rusty Turner at 03:23 PM | Permalink

By Rusty Turner, Editor, The Morning News
News media in general and newspapers in particular do a rotten job of explaining ourselves to the people who consume our work. Too often, we respond to questions about why we published this or declined to publish that with a haughty, “Because WE know what news is.”

I’ll let you in on a little secret: What we do is not rocket science. Oh, there is a method to our madness. We consider many factors when deciding what to publish: Who needs to know this? How much does it cost? How many people are affected? Does this make you mad? Does it make you happy? Will it teach you something? Does it entertain you?

But I acknowledge that it appears to many people that what we do is akin to reading goat entrails on a rock — it’s unscientific, arbitrary, emotional and messy.

On this blog we’ll try to demystify the process. If everyone — us included — learns something from the exercise, we will have accomplished our goal.

I’ll start with reader comments on our website.

Several months ago we enabled comments on almost every story we publish on-line. It has, in most respects, been a roaring success. Stories that strike a nerve with readers get lots of hits, and many lively and informative debates have taken place on our site. We, of course, are pleased that our hits are way up and that many new web readers have found us.

One aspect that surprised us is that reader comments became a sort of unintended blogspot. People frequently return to stories that are, in some cases, several months old to continue a debate with other posters.

But, like any other “public” space on the web, we’ve had a few problems. Some of our posters don’t behave themselves and we end up having to delete their posts.

In the beginning, we very carefully developed a set of guidelines for posting comments on our site. We want to encourage debate, but we also want a place where as many people as possible are willing to spend their on-line time. The guidelines are pretty basic: no insults, profanity, threats or accusations.

Most posters do just fine. Some, however, don’t, and we take those comments down as soon as we see them or are made aware of them.

There is sometimes confusion over what we take down and what we leave up. Here are a few hints on how to make sure your posts stay available:

— Address the post, not the poster. Personal attacks, name-calling and insults are not allowed. In other words, you can write, “your comment was idiotic,” but you can’t write, “you’re an idiot.”
— No foul language, even in “blog” shorthand. We have a filter, but it doesn’t catch everything. We also don’t want profanities disguised with misspellings, dashes, underscores or dingbats. Posts saying that someone or something “sucks” or “blows” will be deleted. Finally, on-line shorthand that includes profanity — like “LMAO” and “WTF” — will also come down.
— Threats of violence, even in jest, won’t be allowed on our site.
— Accusing someone of a crime, writing a post that assumes the guilt of someone charged with but not convicted of a crime, calling someone a liar and impugning someone’s character through gossip, rumor on innuendo, will cause a post to be deleted. You certainly may criticize a public official’s job performance or an individual’s statements in a story, but stay away from their personal lives.
— Hate speech -- including broad racial, ethnic or religious slurs -- isn’t permitted. We also won’t allow derogatory slang terms (wetback, white trash, towel head, faggot, etc.). That’s not to say you can’t debate issues dealing with race, religion or sexual preference. You can. But debate should be limited to issues, not personalities or stereotypes.

A few more notes: We do not take down comments because we disagree with them, nor do we leave up comments we like even if they violate the guidelines. This is an open forum for ideas. If you post something that gets taken down, look at the guidelines and resubmit without the offending material. We’ll leave it up.

If you respond to a post that violates our guidelines, we will likely take it down when we take down the offending comment. It doesn’t make much sense to leave a response on-line to a post that no longer exists.

It is our website, and we want the people who comment to observe the standards the newspaper deems appropriate. We want as many people as possible to visit our website and view your comments. To that end, we think our standards are an important way to make everyone feel welcome.

Posted by Rusty Turner at 04:03 PM | Permalink