You know how I hate to be critical of the S-R, and this question doesn't exactly rise to the level of "Ask the Editors," but can we get a little quicker turnaround time on the little web--Just Browsing/Read/Watch section on the front page of the website? I thought the point was to be dynamic in the presentation of content, but in that box, things are placed there to die.

For example, "CNN reports on South Park's latest" seems less poignant given the March 9th date of the content. And the "Bacon-wrapped, cheese-filled, batter-fried hot dog" story was interesting, but not two weeks interesting. Maybe a goal would be to replace content in that section within a week...or five days...or even a few days? Surely, given the extent of information on the World Wide Web, there might be enough suitable content for regular rotation?

In this morning's paper, Pia K. Hansen asks a question which cries out for an answer, one that I believe exists at the heart of news journalism itself. She wrote, and I quote:

Some journalists fear going after controversial stories because they can be subpoenaed and forced to hand over all their work, in some cases effectively turning them into the investigative branch of the government.

That was never the point of a free press.

[snip]

The lack of a federal shield law is an increasing problem as stories are disseminated across state lines on the Internet.

And some journalists, even in states with shield laws, may find themselves in federal court being threatened with jail time if they refuse to give up their sources.

We're hung up on language: If you can't define who is a journalist, it's difficult to write a law protecting journalists and their sources.

On Saturday, immediate past SPJ national president and University of Florida journalism professor David Carlson, suggested defining a journalist as someone who commits the act of journalism – collecting information with the intent to disseminate it to a wider audience – is better than trying to identify a journalist as a person with a certain affiliation or special credentials.

Read the rest of this entry »

A drip-dry day to ya'll...

In this morning's paper, there is an article titled "Ordinary people flagged as terrorists" that really hits my sore spot. However, look as I might, I could not find a copy of the OFAC list being used in what I consider an illegal manner.

Of course, the SR Editorial Board would have to weigh in on this, perhaps even their legal counsel, but what do the powers-that-be think of posting a copy of the list online?

Here are my justifications for such an action:

1. It serves the public purpose. From what I have read the names on the list are not classified, nor are they apparently restricted. In my brief search this morning, I found two major credit companies that possess copies of this list.

2. It puts our government on notice that tyranny should never be tolerated by such half-baked and misinformed actions.

On the other hand, it MAY put the SR in a bind with the Department of Homeland Insecurity. However, it would be nice if someone addresses this issue in News is a Conversation.

Cowardly person that I can be, I have waited somewhat anxiously throughout the weekend to see if anyone else had comments regarding the excellent piece by Bill Morlin and Karen Dorne-Steele in Sunday's paper.

It is mentioned in the piece that one of the results of the Otto Zehm homicide is that the litigation caused by Zehm's death will most certainly bring about the demise of the City's self-insured status. All the reserves will have been spent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Quote:

Our Kids: Our Business

On April 1, The Spokesman-Review will begin publishing a comprehensive examination of child abuse in the Inland Northwest. Reporters have spent months exploring the causes of abuse, the people and programs that help prevent abuse and the factors that make communities safe for children, in recognition of National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Read the rest of this entry »

Good morning, Netizens...

Doug Clark's column this morning made me hurt again.

In a private e-mail moment I tried recently to tell one member of the law enforcement community recently how it felt to grow up in an abusive family back in an age where there were NO laws on the books regarding child abuse. I probably failed at my task because even now, over 50 years later, I still emotionally fall apart, and even my literacy fails me as I remember each incident, each emotional and physical scar that I will carry to my grave. Each step I have taken since that time to eliminate those memories from my mind has been a dismal failure. Do children ever forget their abusers? I think not. The overriding question for most of my life has been 'what did I do wrong?'.

Read the rest of this entry »

Good evening, Netizens...

I was pleasantly surprised when I read the following:

In January, for the second year in a row, Spokane7.com won a Digital Edge Award, or Edgie, as the best local guide or entertainment Web site through the Newspaper Association of America's New Media Federation. The award was for Web sites sponsored by newspapers with circulations of 75,000 to 250,000.

"These awards in national competitions are very gratifying and flattering," said Managing Editor Gary Graham. "We have an immensely talented staff of journalists who work very hard every day to provide excellent journalism for our readers."

Kudos to all involved.

Greetings from Kalmar, Sweden. Tuesday, Swedish time, I am speaking to a group of European journalists about the transparent newsroom initiative. I would like to know what our readers think of the initiative, what works, what doesn't work, positives and negatives.

In short, tell me what I should say to this group of remarkably sophisticated and very, very smart journalists and educators about The Spokesman and our imperfect efforts to be more transparent and more accountable. Have our efforts lived up to the promise? Have we let you down? What more should we be doing?

Good morning Netizens...

Sitting in the center of my hovel, always on the alert for some fragment of journalism that strikes my fancy, and keeping an eye out for the off-the-wall story that somehow has eluded the mainstream press, I nearly fell out of my high chair with laughter this morning upon learning that ABC is planning to give those neo-sensitive cavemen from the Geico insurance commercials their own sitcom. Of course, I cannot help but wonder who their corporate sponsors will be. Color me purple if it isn't Geico.

According to what I have read in several separate places, those hairy Neanderthals reportedly will "battle prejudice as they attempt to live as normal thirty-something members of modern society in Atlanta."

I grew up believing that television sitcoms are purported to emulate reality, and sometimes reality returns the compliment.

The absurd concept of a sitcom featuring the Cavemen brings to mind what would happen if two our two hairy, starry-eyed Neanderthals came to Spokane and set up housekeeping. Would they parlay their screen presence into running for a high political office in Spokane? Does Dennis Hession have a new candidate to be concerned about? Would they gad about town eating in those fashionable upper-crust eateries, smiling and playing the roles of genteel arrived stars, with people gushing over them and seeking their autographs?

Would you buy a house or condo from a hairy Neanderthal? What would you say to the Neanderthal serving as a Greeter at Walmart?

No, somehow the thought of a real Neanderthal family moving into Spokane is nearly as ridiculous as the thought of one appearing as the star of a sitcom. Instead, it is just another reason to turn off the TV and read a good book, instead.

Of course, your results may differ.

First of all, I am as guilty as anyone for not posting in here, but I just can't seem to find anything interesting enough to discuss. Most of what I would say seems to be covered in the paper itself through editorials and letters that are published. Which probably is indicative of the willingness of the paper to discuss its shortcomings in public. I notice that the last posting in here (other than one by the editor, Steve Smith) was on February 16th. So I guess I'm wondering if the blogging craze is waning. Is there any point to keeping this News Is A Conversation blog going? I guess it doesn't hurt to just leave it here in case someone wants to comment, but if the space is needed for something else, I think it probably could go away. Just my opinion.