Folks,

I sent out another mass e-mail this evening responding to reader calls and questions. I'll share portions of it it here.

Dear Reader:

Once again, I hope you'll forgive me for a general response to all of your e-mails. There simply are too many for individualized replies.

But if this note fails to answer your questions or respond to your concerns, please let me know and I promise I'll get back to you in some way.

We felt that today's paper (Tuesday) began to show some of the promise we hold for our new design. Reproduction was much improved. As I said in my page 1 note, it will take about seven to 10 days to recalibrate and fine-tune the presses, work that could not be done until the new page size was implemented. Calibration and technical issues have created some of the muddiness and blurriness affecting some photos and is responsible for some of the typface issues, particularly type that seems to be too light.

The Jumble returned to the paper today and we tinkered with the Page 2A weather package aiming for more contrast and better readability.

We'll be making some additional changes tomorrow and have others planned for later in the week. I reapplhy appreciate reader patience during this transition. As redesigns go (and I;ve been throguh several) it has been remarkably smooth. But no effort of this magnitude can be glitch free.

Here are some of the changes you'll see tomorrow or later in the week.

* Hints from Heloise will be back daily on Page 2 of the Today features section. Next to the Jumble, the absence of Heloise has been our greatest complaint.

* The daily NYT crossword will move to the bottom left corner of Page 2 of the Today section in response to readers who want to be able to fold their paper more easily.

* New graphics will appear on the weather package and city names will be printed in bold face on the regional weather map. We're also working to increase the size and boldness of the weather package body type, but it may be the end of the week before you see those improvements.

* We're going to change the typeface on the records, achievements and movie guide columns (and columns of that sort) to improve readability. You should see the change Thursday or Friday and I;d appreciate your feedback on our fix. Does it work?

* Some of you have complained about our dropping the daily currency exchange rate box from the Business section. We'll probably hang tough on that one. The daily listings applied to investments and funds in excess of $1 million and was not applicable to the average consumer. We run a consumer listing on Sunday and will continue that. In addition, we still offer the Saturday Investment section free to any subscriber who asks for it. That section, which has been around for years and goes to about 18,000 subscribers, has complete weekly stock and mutal fund information and a great deal of other financial and investment information.

* Some of you have expressed concern on the size of the Classified ads (a bit smaller in a new 10-column format but with larger type) and also on the new two-column size of the obituaries. The redesign of the Classifieds is not handled by the newsroom and we were not involved in any of their design and typography decisions. ersonally, i think the Classifieds are much more readable. But, in anty event, the 10-column format will give way to a more pleasing six-column format, maybe by the end of the year. The delay is tied to the fact that complicated Classified software that handles placement and billing has to be complete reworked for a six-column format. That change also will reduce the size of the obituaries slightly, though they still will be far larger than before. But they won't seem so oversized.

* The new section on Saturday, American Profile, is an addition. It does NOT replace Parade which remains an important part of the Sunday paper. And the new section that debuts Wednesday, RELISH, is another addition, a monthly food magazine.

I wanted to post something earlier today about the new design. Primarily i want to solicit reaction from readers of this blog.

But following is text of a mass mailing I sent out this afternoon to the 150 or so e-mails I received today. I think it answers most of the major questions.

If anything remains to be asked or said, please post. I am interested in all reactions.

Thanks,
steve
Dear Reader:

Well, our e-mail cup runneth over (about 150 responses) so I sincerely hope you'll accept my apology for a this standardized response to your much-appreciated note. I'll try to cover the most significant topics raised by all of you.

First, the Jumble puzzle is back beginning Tuesday morning. The puzzle was dropped by its syndicate late last week and we feared we could not replace it. But we found a new provider Monday morning so the Jumble is back.

Second, the syndicate that provided our daily crossword puzzle dropped that puzzle last week, too. That's why we've added the New York Times puzzle daily. I'd love to have the easier puzzle back, but I'm afraid it's gone for good. We're still shopping and if we can find an easier puzzle, we'll try to add it later. But we will move the daily NYT puzzle to the edge of the page for those of you who fold your paper in a particular way.

Third, our primary body type is almost identical in size, black density and leding (the space between lines) to the old typeface. The page is smaller but the primary type is not. However, we went with a sans serif, lighter-face type for our briefing columns and other smaller elements. Seeing it on the page, I think readability of those elements was compromised so we'll change over to regular body type for those features beginning tomorrow. Our smaller agate type, used for sports statistics, for example, is actually larger than that found in the former design.

Fourth, we were not happy with the Page 2A weather graphics. They were too gray. We'll be experimenting with different looks this week and should have that spruced up shortly.

Fifth, I ask that you all keep in mind that this was a typical Monday paper. We never run letters to the editor on Monday so there were none. You'll see letters in Today's paper and every day but Monday from here on out. Similarly, columnists Doug Clark, Rebecca Nappi, Jim Kershner and Paul Turner (The Slice) don't run in the Monday paper. You'll find all of them in the paper on their regular schedules. Hints from Heloise has not been a daily feature for years and raarely is in the Monday paper. You'll see Heloise just as often as before in the redesigned Spokesman.

Sixth, many of you commented on the relatively muddy quality of some photos, on ink bleed-through, wet ink or wrinkles. Please keep in mind the page-width reduction forced a complete overhaul of our presses. Production director Paul Schafer says it will take about a week to recalibrate and fine-tune the press to bring reproduction back to our award-winning standards. For example, the color ink typically is applied automatically by sprayers on the press. But those sprayers are not yet aligned (and couldn't be until after the changeover) so color ink is being applied manually. I'm sure you'll see some quick improvement.

To those of you who sent along compliments, my sincere thanks. To those who sent complaints, my thanks and a promise that we've read and listened to them all and will attempt to tackle the problems you've identified.

Redesigning a newspaper is among that hardest projects we can take on. It is enormously complicated technologically as presses and computer systems have to be modified -- all while the old design is still being produced. And the editors responsible for putting the paper out each night have to instantly re-train their brains to handle new computer codes, tag lines, formats, etc. Typically, it take a month to iron out the bugs. I do want to assure you, we printed several prototypes and tested them with reader groups, including older readers who would be most visually challenged. The changes that debuted today passed those road tests.

I ask all of you to stick with us for a few weeks and then let us know how the paper is working for you. We're interested and we'll listen.

And don;t hesitate to write or call if I can answer any additional questions.

Thanks,
Steve Smith

Even the most cool-headed parents can be pushed too far when it comes to poor sportsmanship on their children's playing fields. And sometimes, the parents themselves exhibit less than model behavior. Today's "Today" section features a story about upcoming talks by nationally-known sports parenting expert Rick Wolff, who will be in Spokane this weekend offering advice on how to handle some of the tense situations in youth sports.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Are you seeing a downward trend in sportmanship in youth sports? How do you handle situations such as a referee making a bad call on your child or the opposing team being rude or unnecessarily aggressive?

I hope I don't come across as insensitive, but I think you could have picked a better subject to use in your piece in the Region section on the doctor who makes house calls at the Carlyle Care Center. I assume you were trying to focus on the doctor, but my focus kept going to the patient. You lead in with a couple of paragraphs which seem to seek sympathy for the patient, Gary Mulvey. I do recognize that suicide (attempted or otherwise) is usually caused by depression, a form of mental illness, but using that particular patient as an example of who is served by the good doctor seemed a poor choice. Believe me, I have seen the horrible results of suicide, both attempted and successful, and I have great sympathy for the person who felt that hopeless to take such drastic action. I'm just pointing out that I think this particular subject's reason for being in that situatiuon detracted from the main point of the article. I may be alone in this, but just felt I should air my thoughts on it.

A while back I posted about the Spokesman's lack of a full-time food critic. At the time it was indicated that finding a replacement for Leslie Kelly was in the works, but that was the last thing I heard of it. So now, eight months later, I'm feeling a pressing need to bring the question back up again. The reason? Two recent reviews (Fugazzi's and Spencer's For Steaks and Chops) written by one of your correspondents.

Now, not to offend the person who wrote those articles, but please tell me that this is the last time I have to read his reviews in 7. Being a food critic, at least as far as I am concerned, takes a bit more than average writing skills and the time and money to go out to restaurants. There is a place for writers with that skill-level of course (it's called a "blog") but a newspaper is not it.

Some might say that personal preferences can't be wrong, but I disagree. Suggesting that Fugazzi's is a culinary sleeper that has the fixings to become a regional hit is simply so outlandish that it is wrong. This is a place that has "puff pastry-phyllo dough" on the menu. A menu that was outdated in 1995. A menu from a restaurant where two people had to send their frozen meals back for re-heating the last (and I mean that quite literally) time I visited. This while I was eating a $25 beef tenderloin without any seasoning or sauce. I could have done better myself for 1/3 of the price at home.

I can certainly accept that other people's opinions differ from mine, but the Fugazzi's review doesn't even try to gloss over the glaring reasons why the place just doesn't hold its own. Instead it completely ignores them. And this is from the same correspondent who had "tears of joy" from what can only be described as an average steakhouse.

Again, I have nothing against the writer personally; he just shouldn't be reviewing restaurants in a newspaper. And I guess that brings out the bigger question: is hiring a proper food-critic even a priority for the Spokesman at this time? If so, is anything in the works? At this point I think anybody with critical thinking skills, an honest opinion, and an education as a journalist would be a step up.

Many of you have noticed over the months a "troll" posting under a variety of different aliases. The troll is Marshall Smith, a resident of Spokane who has a long history of anonymously harassing blog and newsgroup posters.

We have deleted dozens, if not hundreds of Mr. Smith's posts from this blog since the beginnning of this project, including three just this morning. He has posted under the names of Spokesman-Review employees and editors as well as other bloggers, but has never seen fit to stand behind his opinions by using his own name.

Mr. Smith has been asked numerous times to refrain from posting to this blog, but he insists on coming back. We ask that posters please continue to ignore Smith's antagonism, and we will delete it as soon as possible.

If anyone has been the target of harassing or threatening communication from Marshall Smith, please let us know so we can assist in taking appropriate legal action.

Good morning, once again...

Years ago, an experienced network admin once commented to me, "...if you build it on the Internet, the gerbils will come. Your job is to become a gerbil-stomper...". Over the last decade, I have become fairly proficient at eliminating the Internet rodents, to such a degree with only occasional forays, they leave me alone.

Few people that regularly use the Internet recognize the importance of having a fixed-IP address, which is wholly their own, not shared with a block of other users. Ultimately the only way to totally control who can write in the blog is to request that users obtain and use a fixed-IP address, and then restrict anyone who has no permissions from ever writing to the blog.

However, I'll conceded this design, while it works without a flaw, is technically-challenging for most users, not to mention many Internet Service Providers will not give their users a fixed-IP address, for fear they might use it to create an online server. (some do).

However, the one method of preventing the gerbils in the SR blog is to familiarize ourselves with IP address notation, and put anyone who becomes a nuisance into an easily-configured firewall which essentially locks them out.

For example, one of our periodically-recurring gerbils has an IP address of 193.252.53.22 which, when you use certain tools to examine where this Internet vagrant hails from, comes back as being from:

inetnum: 193.252.53.0 - 193.252.53.127
netname: IP2000-ADSL-BAS
descr: France Telecom IP2000 ADSL BAS
country: FR
admin-c: WITR1-RIPE
tech-c: WITR1-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: for hacking, spamming or security problems send mail to
remarks: postmaster@wanadoo.fr AND abuse@wanadoo.fr
mnt-by: FT-BRX
source: RIPE # Filtered

role: Wanadoo France Technical Role
address: WANADOO FRANCE

I briefly went through a few of the hidden messages from the Gerbils of the Internet in News is a Conversation this morning, and easily recognized nearly ALL the IP blocks as being from Gerbils I have already locked out of other systems. France, China, Korea, Japan, even Africa are all in the list of the miscreants in our midst who have no business here.

Another thought along these lines is, if you allow THEM access, they will unquestionably "sniff out" our e-mail addresses, and thus add to the burden of junk mail for most users who purchase Internet access from traditional Internet Service Providers who offer no firewall services.

Since I am muttering in my coffee at this hour of the morning, I looked briefly at my firewall, and sure enough! I had rejected over 75 connection attempts from this IP block in France in the previous 24 hours, such suggests they are trying; unsuccessfully, but trying, but they get nothing from my network.

I am willing to help the SR with the solution to this pestilence in our midst. Sometimes it is frustrating to the purpose of communication when there are Gerbils who pop by periodically to scream VIAGRA at the top of their lungs.

I can almost see this one becoming an issue here. For the benefit of those who haven't read this AP story, it is about a Wisconsin newspaper that allows readers to vote on the next day's headlines. There are pros and cons, just like everything else in life, and within certain guidelines, I can see this might work in the future of interactive journalism. However, before anyone gets too agitated about the concept, even the Editor of the Wisconsin paper admitted that the editors could overrule the readers' selections.

Personally, I disagree with the concept, just as I disagree with the concept of making blog comments anonymous. The model we currently use, of using our own names, and speaking for ourselves about journalism perhaps should have a disclaimer specifically limiting the newspaper's responsibility for anything we write, but barring that, what good would enforced anonymity serve?

I believe the model of allowing input, while letting the editors ultimately make the determinations, is the best way toward the future of online journalism and openness in the news media.

What we have now is breaking new ground, and I have learned from my limited participation as it is.

WashingtonPost.com temporarily turned off comments on their Post.Blog recently because of vicious personal attacks.

We killed our forums in 2004 because we allowed posts to be anonymous, the forums were unmoderated and the "discussion" got really ugly.

With the Post's recent dustup, there's been a lot of discussion about forums, comment fields in blogs and other ways in which readers can post their thoughts both anonymously and (mostly) unmoderated.

We're having some issues with a handful of people who are abusing the comment threads in our blogs, and with some annoying comment "spam."

I encourage you all to read this essay from Vin Crosbie, an online media pioneer who has a lot of experience with this, and offers quite a bit of wisdom.

For example:

"I fear that our industry has fallen under the spell of a techno-utopian fallacy that says we can foster a renaissance in journalism, civic involvement, and comity simply by implementing new-media technologies."

"...media cannot offer transparency to the readers unless the readers are also willing to be transparent. If 'News is a Conversation,' then transparency is required among all conversants, including the readers."

"If you're going to let anyone publish something in your publication, whether in print or online, know their identity and read their submission before its publication. If they are truly willing to stand behind their words, then they must be willing to withstand identification by the publisher who has legal responsibility for the publication of their words."

"If they request that the publisher disguise or omit their identity in publication, let them first provide the publisher with a cogent reason why. (The publisher should state somewhere on the page’s boilerplate that a writer's name may be withheld for reasons but only after prior identification.)"

"Yes, I know that this will create work for the online publishing staff. Tough. If you want to offer your readers the facility to comment, then you must adequately staff that facility or else cacophony can result (as it has in many cases.) Publishers who think that just because this facility involves computers, then it should operate autonomously and without staff moderation and supervision are deluded by the techno-utopian fallacy. There is no free lunch online."

My inclination is to follow Vin's advice completely. I'm curious to know what readers of this column have to say about the matter (while their anonymity is still allowed).

There was considerable discussion at our meeting this morning about Dave Oliveria's online Huckleberries question about rape and today's wire story on a new WSU sex assault story.

I've posted a comment on Dave's blog reflecting my view of his question.

But I steadfastly refuse to ask him to pull the question in response to newsroom or community outrage.

We give our columnists the room to speak their mind. Sometimes they step in it, as I believe Dave did today. But I'm not going to respond by restricting their freedom to opine.

If you're outraged by Dave's question, let him know (or let him know if you agree with his supposition).

Thanks,
steve

Did you spot the "s" word in today's "7" cover story? It was quite the topic of conversation at this morning's news meeting. Some felt the quote in which the word was used was gratuitous, others felt it was a great piece of color that would be prudish to omit. Thoughts?

Blogger's Note: The word used in the paper and referenced in this post is a "prohibited word" in the software used to produce this blog. Do not try and use it in your posts unless you obscure at least two of it's letters with symbols or refer to it in the '"s" word' fashion. (Doug Hughes)

I wonder if the Our View editorial today on the new Internet law will be of concern to our own local "troll"? As much as I dislike it when he spews his stuff in here, I hate curtailment of free speech even more. This law must be challenged soon and ruled unconstitutional.

As the NFC championship game approaches, we're wondering how excited people over here on the dry side are about the possibility of seeing the Seahawks in the Super Bowl. Are you braving the pass to see the game this weekend? If so, how much are you shelling out for tickets? Or, are you steeling your stomach for an afternoon of beer and onion rings at a local sports bar?

Or, do we even care?

An excellent front page article today on how contractors can get a license even with a criminal background. Now before I hire one I will invest an additional $15 and go to the State Patrol to have a criminal background check done. Well worth the money. I think it is terrible that the State Legislature has not enacted laws that would prevent a person convicted of fraud from obtaining a contractor's license.

The Golden Globes aren't the most newsworthy event of the day and this post is fairly frivolous, but my jaw dropped when I visited the Spokesman site early this evening and the victors were already announced in bold print.

How about next time not revealing the winners in the headline until after the telecast has aired? Those curious enough could click to read the rest of the story.

Sort of like spoiling the Super Bowl for some of us.

A story in today's In Life section tackles a classic parenting question: When are my kids old enough to leave them home by themselves?

Some parents wouldn't dream of leaving their kids alone overnight at any age. Others do it with aplomb – and a long list of caveats that starts with "must be 17" and "put the neighborhood on alert."

It all depends on the kid, said family therapist Marty Sochet, who encourages parents to err on the conservative side. Just because a child is 15 or 17 doesn't mean he'll keep a cool head when the grilled cheese catches fire, or the butter knife severs something critical.

We hope you'll share some more thoughts on this issue here. When do you think your kids are OK to come home from school without you there? What about being gone overnight?

A few years ago, it made the headlines when Ralph Benson killed a Washington State fuel tax auditor, Roger Erdman, at an isolated missile silo near Davenport. A great number of state and regional employees and managers asked the question in retrospect, "What could we learn from the death of Roger Erdman?"

He was a close friend of mine and, like singer and songwriter, Fred Neil, I'm still looking for the dolphin in the sea...

It is obvious, based upon Benjamin Shors' punchy factual story in today's paper, that nobody listened to the answers that were given, at least at the legislative level in Olympia.

The lesson is this: any time a state employee, regardless of their title or role, goes out to visit citizens on a professional basis, EVERYTHING must be done to guarantee their safety, and there is no excuse for not doing so. Why are the people at the state level dragging their feet on this issue?

That is the only question which remains unresolved in reading Mr. Shors' otherwise excellent piece. I submit there is no acceptable justification for all the bureaucratic foot-dragging that has gone on, either regarding the social worker in this story, or the various other state and regional employees who have been hurt or killed in the line of duty. Perhaps this is not a fit topic for the Blog, but should be handled via a letter to the Editor, but Mr. Shors story this morning begs an answer, and despite all the gums flapping in Olympia I wonder if we are, indeed, any closer to a solution.

Being assaulted or killed is never an acceptable part of a job description.

Virginnia DeLeon's piece in this afternoon's paper about the passing of Wally Hagin pretty much says it all. Her eloquence and knowledge of Wally's life pretty much speaks for itself, and she did an excellent job of hailing the stature of the man, throughout the many interesting years of his life.

I have said it privately, and now again publicly, that Wally had more interesting and fascinating stories to tell than I do, which says a lot. However, what will always linger on with me, for all the years of my life, is the character of the man, himself, for he was a true unswerving gentleman, in the old-world tradition.

Although Virginnia mentioned it in her excellent piece, one of the ways I will always remember Wally most dearly was his quintessential knowledge of jazz, and music in general. Having been blessed with knowing this tower of a man for many years, I was fascinated with his continuous ability to learn new things, of being able to speak with just about anyone who came calling at his house.

Virginnia did the job of writing about an old, dear soul who bore no one ill thoughts, who had a marvelous penchant for taking pictures of a hidden generation of African Americans in Spokane long before such records were kept. As always, Virginnia captured a brief but meaningful glimpse of the humanity of Mr. Hagin, and did the job justice.

Thank you for remembering my old friend. He will be missed.

Since I just turned 60 the 30th of December, I refer to myself as the old goat who CAN. It is perhaps less-decorous than some of the terms Rebecca Nappi came up with for her piece in this morning's paper, but she is quite eloquent in how she examines our generation as it slopes toward Egypt.

Nice job, Rebecca!

Good morning, everyone...

The events of the last year have been a considerable eye-opener for those who live in our neighborhood. A series of night break-ins, with losses mounting into the tens of thousands of dollars in tools and equipment, did more to undermine Deputy Chief Odenthal's statements than all the press releases in City Hall combined. Nine burglaries took place last year, all of which took place within two blocks of our house, and in some cases, the citizens, based upon previous experiences, never called 911. That is because, in six of the incidents, the police never responded. Not one squad car showed up to investigate the burglaries once they were concluded, and in one case, it does appear, based upon witnesses' statements, the burglars appeared to be armed with baseball bats, and the residents only caught a brief glimpse of the burglars as their tools were hauled down the alley.

Even today, if you call 911 when a burglary is in progress, the 911 operators will do everything in their powers to keep you on the phone, ostensibly until police arrive. That is their job, I suppose, but thus the 911 operators can be counter-productive to catching the miscreants who are probably getting away before or IF the police show up to investigate a residential burglary.

In our neighborhood, there are more people than before who now have firearms in their homes, and would not hesitate to use them, perhaps even incorrectly, in the event of a break-in, for you cannot shoot someone simply because they are breaking into your home or garage. You have to have reasonable belief that your lives are in imminent danger. Police don't just go around shooting people because they commit crimes, and neither can the general public.

However, were I in the same situation as described, I would not hesitate to shoot first and call 911 later. What Deputy Chief Odenthal and Acting Chief Nicks perhaps should be doing, instead of making bureaucratic statements before the media, is put a higher priority on investigating and acting on residential burglaries and break-ins, because if they persist uninvestigated, it sets the stage thus:

1. Eventually a burglar who is not armed will be shot during a burglary, and from a policeman's procedural point of view, that could be very messy if an unarmed burglar is shot and dies. The burglary victim, in such a case, could end up being jailed for murder, depending upon circumstances.

2. On the other hand, the police need to place a higher priority on investigating burglaries in residential neighborhoods in Spokane, even if the burglars have already left the crime scene. Ignoring 911 calls that a residential burglary has taken place breeds contempt and unrest, particularly among citizens who have already been victimized before, and thus are apt to arm themselves.

The rash of armed citizens taking unilateral action is a direct result of unanswered complaints to 911, and is indicative of a greater problem, for these particular types of "smash and grab" residential burglaries are on the rise, despite what the police department's highly-touted statistics suggest. Not everyone calls 911 when they hear someone breaking into their house or garage.

What the story didn't say, what the police blithely ignored, is that because Mr. Boisjolie was armed and took immediate action, he still has his personal property. Had he called 911 he might not.

There will be considerable second guessing this morning about the early reporting out of the West Virginia mining disaster. In keeping with contemporary practice, there will be a feeding frenzy as journalistic self-examining turns to second-guessing and recrimination. And already we're hearing from people who see the unexpected reversal of last night's events as a further sign of press incompetence and ethical decline.

I'm not going to join that frenzy, at least insofar as print is concerned. Unfortunately, print becomes embroiled in criticism of electronic media where some additional level of recrimination is probably warranted.

But here's what we know in Spokane, 3,000 miles away from the disaster scene.

Our wire services began reporting the miners were alive mid-evening. Reports from Knight-Ridder Tribune, the Washington Post and the Associated Press -- all with small armies of reporters on the scene -- attributed the reports to company officials, to family members and even to the state's governor who issued a statement. The town's church bells were rung signaling a successful rescue. Reporters asking to see the rescued miners were directed to the community church where, they were told, the miners would be brought.

As a former reporter, I'd like to think I would have included some qualifying language in any story I'd have written -- "reportedly" found alive is one such qualifier. But being on the scene, hearing the news as reporters did, I can't imagine NOT reporting that the miners were found alive.

Our Idaho edition story, by Washington Post reporter Ann Scott Tyson cites all of the above sources without substantial qualification. Similar unqualified reports came from our other wire services.

Our Idaho edition carried the headline "Miracle at Mine."

But just as we were closing shop for the night reporter Amy Cannata called in to the office having spotted a late TV report. Senior Editor Geoff Pinnock, in charge of the night operation, called in extra help and we were able to print updated stories for the Spokane County and Spokane Valley editions, about 80 to 85 percent of our circulation. I'm very proud of their late work.

A quick review of the nation's front pages (which you can do by accessing this link) shows most West Coast papers got it right, at least for their late editions.

Obviously there was less opportunity to correct the story on the East Coast and in the Midwest though some late street editions got it right.

If you want to look at the ongoing industry debate, check out the Romanesko report on the Poynter Institute website. Those of you interested in journalism might want to bookmark this link in any event.

I'll weigh in later as more information surfaces.
Thanks,
Steve

I have not yet read my morning Spokesman, but I have read the Internet report about the complete reversal of information from the West Virginia mining disaster.

I went to bed jubilant last night, thinking that, for once, we could give thanks for a happy ending to our nation's catastrophes. I got up this morning to learn that the information was all wrong.

When is someone in our media going to take the lead in reversing these glaring mistakes that continue to increase in news reporting?

Will the cruel emotional turmoil caused by this latest news-reporting disaster finally hammer home the message that accountability and confirmed facts must always be the essence of our entire profession?

I have a feeling that trust in our media has suffered a death knell, just like those miners who were supposedly alive and well and ready to walk across that bridge to their euphoric families.

Sorry about the emotion, but it's past time for all segments of the media to take a good look in the mirror, repent for too many sins of inaccuracy and go back to the basics.

I thoroughly enjoyed the editorial in the Our View column today. I agree with the view, and thought the humorous way it was presented added to its impact. However, I am confused about something. I don't see Doug Clark's name listed as one of the editorial board, but after reading Our View today I must assume someone at least consulted him. It has his style written all over it.