I thought I'd mentioned here a couple of days ago that the editor of the News Sentinel started a weblog of his own at http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/editor -- something I hadn't discovered when I posted Saturday's item.
Editor Jack McElroy is letting readers post comments, and he's responding to some of them. For example, there was one about his personal politics:
I'm not going to tell who I voted for in 2000 or 2004. Even if I didn't
believe in the sanctity of the voting booth -- which I do -- I'd be a
foolish newspaper editor to share my private votes with the public. I
will tell you this. I registered as a Republican, like my parents, when
I first was able to register. When I got my first professional job and
moved, a friendly Democratic registrar signed me up for that party.
After my first year in newspapers I moved again and I vowed I would
never again be a member of a political party, a vow I've kept.
Since
then, I've voted for Republican, Democratic and Libertarian
presidential candidates. Seems like a bunch of them lost, too. So maybe
my real preference is for the underdog, which I suppose if where many
journalists' hearts lie.
His comment reminds me of reporters I knew at The Hartford Courant who felt they'd stay unbiased if they didn't read the editorial page -- or simply "just didn't want to know." The charming "for the underdog" reference reminds me of the old "comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" line and its many variations [audio]. However, you can take that original Mr. Dooley piece as a poke at self-important editors who felt they ran the world, or a poke at paranoid readers who accused the newspaper of having that much power. Dooley's creator was a newspaper editor himself, which didn't seem to kill his sense of humor. I suspect that he meant the passage to go in all of those directions at once, afflicting comfortable editors and comforting afflicted readers...
Opening a blog to readers' comments also can be an affliction, which was the topic of an live discussion at the Washington Post Wednesday by readers and a panel of journalists and bloggers, some who do and some who don't have a "comment" feature on their blogs. An archive of the exchange is still online.
Prominent local blogger and UT law professor Glenn Reynolds' http://instapundit.com is in the "don't" column, and shared some of his reasons, including libel and copyright issues and the risk of someone mistaking (or misrepresenting) a commenter's words for his. But he said he interacts with readers in another way:
I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those,
post on my blog, AND moderate comments.
He has plenty more to say, as do Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen and others -- panelists and readers alike. Take a look. However -- speaking of not having enough time -- that Washington Post discussion runs to more than 10,000 words -- about 30 single-spaced pages!
8:47:05 PM 
|
|
