From News Editor Jordan Green:
In the four hours that my most recent staff column, "Ask and you shall receive," has been posted to the web, it appears that I've stirred minimal controversy. I'm always anticipating a firestorm of condemnation, but often as not that expectation turns out to be a product of wild fantasy. With the exception of the Troublemaker — a limitless well of ire — and some mild opprobrium by Guarino, I've been mostly disappointed.
Here's something. In my column about Food Not Bombs I mentioned the group's designation by one FBI agent as a domestic terrorism group. I mentioned Greensboro Food Not Bombs' lack of cooperation with a UNCG cop. And I mentioned the icky controversy surrounding Dumpster-diving. What I didn't discuss — at least not at length — is my role in fundraising for the group. What readers would probably be interested to know is that I received a message from a state official expressing interest in making a donation. I'm not inclined to disclose this person's identity, and I'll take the heat for that.
It was my idea to organize the banquet. Part of what I brought to the table was my extensive list of contacts. I gather e-mail addresses as a reporter, and I gather e-mail addresses as a human being with social instincts. I do it compulsively. I sensed that there were progressive people in Greensboro with money who would want to support Food Not Bombs' work. I didn't solicit anyone personally, but I sent out a mass Evite advertising our banquet at the Hive last Saturday. I think that Food Not Bombs' work is worthy of community support.
In most cases I am pretty shamelessly transparent about every aspect of my life. So I'll acknowledge that I was both excited and a little unnerved when I received the message from the unnamed official asking how to get a check to Food Not Bombs. I never made any promise to keep the name a secret, but I ask myself would any of the donations have been made if the donors had been told their names would be published in YES! Weekly?
So here's another invitation: If the official wants to go public with their donation, this blog is a good place to do it. Otherwise the mystery will have to remain. In any case, I can promise that this person, to the extent that s/he shows up in my stories, will not receive more favorable coverage because of the donation.
Showing posts with label editorial decisions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial decisions. Show all posts
Coverage: Who are these people?
In terms of man-hours, this week's cover image wasn't that big a deal (the same wasn't true of the story itself, which took hours for our reporters to compile and me to lay out in print and post online).
Ethically, there are some interesting issues at play.
When dealing with election coverage, things get... complicated. After some debate in the office, is was decided we would run as many of the candidates' photos as we could manage to get. For some, this meant running file photos; others provided images or agreed to meet us for a shoot. The result is that some photos were better than others.
My preference would have been to bring each candidate into the office, where we can regulate the quality of the images to insure a level playing field. Unfortunately, we had neither the clout nor the resources. What we were able to do is keep each image at relatively the same size, avoiding giving prominence to any one over the other.
As for the cover, I didn't sweat it as much. The goal here was simple to show the range and diversity of the candidates, not to squeeze as many on as possible. Without their names attached, the photos can't unfairly impact your vote — a good reason not to include photos on the ballot.
Overall, the candidates' images should serve to lend them a sense of humanity. The Nixon-Kennedy debate aside, looks should not play a role in your vote — unless you still believe in Physiognomy
Ethically, there are some interesting issues at play.
When dealing with election coverage, things get... complicated. After some debate in the office, is was decided we would run as many of the candidates' photos as we could manage to get. For some, this meant running file photos; others provided images or agreed to meet us for a shoot. The result is that some photos were better than others.
My preference would have been to bring each candidate into the office, where we can regulate the quality of the images to insure a level playing field. Unfortunately, we had neither the clout nor the resources. What we were able to do is keep each image at relatively the same size, avoiding giving prominence to any one over the other.
As for the cover, I didn't sweat it as much. The goal here was simple to show the range and diversity of the candidates, not to squeeze as many on as possible. Without their names attached, the photos can't unfairly impact your vote — a good reason not to include photos on the ballot.
Overall, the candidates' images should serve to lend them a sense of humanity. The Nixon-Kennedy debate aside, looks should not play a role in your vote — unless you still believe in Physiognomy
Van Halen and the F word
I wrote my column this week about a scene I witnessed before hitting the Greensboro Coliseum to catch Van Halen — a group of fans, all about my age, getting together to see their dream come true.
But I took tons of notes throughout the show...
The writer Susan Orleans says she uses about 20 percent of what she gathers for her pieces, and I probably used about 10 percent of what I got that night.
Anyway, I kind of glossed over the show itself and I ended it with a kicker that came straight from my notebook: "This is the best fucking show I've ever seen."
Although in the cold light of day I might add the corollary "probably," I still stand by the sentiment, including my somewhat gratuitous use of the F word — I mean, we're talking about Van Halen, right?
But I did get a comment from a reader saying that my choice of words sort of ruined the rest of the piece for her. "Why did you have to do that?" she asked.
All I can say is, that's how I felt in the moment.
Did (or does) anyone else object to my foul, foul mouth? Anyone understand why I did it?
But I took tons of notes throughout the show...
The writer Susan Orleans says she uses about 20 percent of what she gathers for her pieces, and I probably used about 10 percent of what I got that night.
Anyway, I kind of glossed over the show itself and I ended it with a kicker that came straight from my notebook: "This is the best fucking show I've ever seen."
Although in the cold light of day I might add the corollary "probably," I still stand by the sentiment, including my somewhat gratuitous use of the F word — I mean, we're talking about Van Halen, right?
But I did get a comment from a reader saying that my choice of words sort of ruined the rest of the piece for her. "Why did you have to do that?" she asked.
All I can say is, that's how I felt in the moment.
Did (or does) anyone else object to my foul, foul mouth? Anyone understand why I did it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)