Famine to feast redux

Some readers of yesterday's blog entry have called me to task for what they termed my inappropriate summary of breaking news on Tuesday that appeared on our website and in today's newspaper. Fair enough. My intention was not to suggest that any of the tragically sad events of Tuesday should have happened or that I take pleasure in tragedy. I should have have been clearer about my point.

My blog entries are focused on explaining what we as journalists do and why, an attempt, if you will, to demystify our decisions. Many readers complain that newspapers concentrate on bad news and never print enough good news. Editors, myself included, will answer that there is lots of good news in the paper each day although readers often recall only the bad or negative stories.

Our story selection on Monday's Page one about Al Parish's guitar collection was an interesting update in the ongoing story of the indicted economist's legal troubles. Had  it not appeared in the paper, however, readers might not have felt they missed important events in our world. The point of my summary of Tuesday's breaking news -  including the tragic death of nine firefighters in Charleston, the indictment of our publicly elected state treasurer and the announcement of Burroughs & Chapin's new chief operating officer - was intended to show that we strive to put the most relevant, most important and newsiest coverage on Page one. One of our roles as journalists is to select and order the news, playing the most important stories larger and the smaller stories in lesser ways. We spend our work days sorting through news that occurs around the world as well as in our communities so that we may bring you the most relevant news report possible.

Like you, we enjoy and appreciate happy events and we feel sorrow and sadness when tragedy strikes. I wish I had been more clear with yesterday's blog entry.

Comments

[bob]

Thank you for correcting the errant message of your original entry. I knew you didn't mean to appear callous, but the words you used certainly gave that impression. I wish your writers and editors would think more about the whole before dashing off a story on the parts. "More clear" should be the daily mantra, not "more controversy."

[cat1dog]

Trisha -
I was one of the people who posted under “Famine or feast” - The reason I said what I said was it seemed (for lack of better words) creepy or weird comparing news with a “Famine or feast” and then right after that talking about the “famine” of the guitar story but the “feast” of the nine firefighters - Then at the end saying “I love it when news picks back up”

Now - I know that is not EXACTLY what you said but that is what it looked like to some people -
I am sure you know as the editor of a newspaper that words can be powerful and in this particular instance what you wrote could have been easily misconstrued - Especially when nine firefighters were just killed in Charleston and at the end you said “I love it when news picks back up” -

It was just looked “creepy or weird” -

In any case - I am sure that you are an intelligent person and I never believed for one minute that you are some crazy lady who wants tragedy to strike so they could have a scoop

[whichone]

cat, you said this in the last blog:
"I have but the way she worded her blog it sounds like she will be real happy if a hurricane wipes us all out this year"

now you say:
"I never believed for one minute that you are some crazy lady who wants tragedy to strike so they could have a scoop"

which one do you mean, brother?

[cat1dog]

Whichone -
As I said words can be powerful - When I wrote the first post under “Famine or feast” I wrote it because when she talked about the firemen and in the same blog put “I love it when news picks back up” - I think in that particular instance I thought she did not realize how she was misusing the power of the written word - So I felt the need to say something

News is news - Be it good or bad - I am sure there are news people who like to cover tragedy - I am not that naive to believe otherwise - But I truly believe this woman did not want the firemen to die just so news would “pick up” - I think she is someone who worded something wrong in her blog and misused the power of the written word -

That is why I talked about the way she WORDED her blog-

If you read the very last thing I said it was -
“ I’m not saying I have never said anything dumb before - I have but the way she worded her blog it sounds like she will be real happy if a hurricane wipes us all out this year ” -

“ the way she worded her blog ” -

I was being facetious when I said the last part “she will be real happy if a hurricane wipes us all out this year”

Anyway - Think about it -If a hurricane does wipe us out - It wipes out the newspaper she works for and her house too -So I don’t think she would be too happy about that - lol

[zappa]

Since she said “My intention was not to suggest that any of the tragically sad events of Tuesday should have happened or that I take pleasure in tragedy ”

OK I will take her for her word.

But she also said “I should have been clearer about my point.”

Yes. That is a good point because the editor really needs to be more unambiguous before making a post of that nature and hitting send.

[whichone]

cat, if we all got wiped out, she'd probably cover it and then get some award for the coverage. She'd get a new house, I'm sure. lol

[cat1dog]

whichone -
lol - As they say - Unfortunately your post is sad but true