Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
One of my most unpleasant interactions with an NP editor was when I posted a story about how people misquote George Santayana's famous statement on the dangers of forgetting history. Although none of my own opinion ever entered into the story, I was pressured into taking the piece from "Politics" or a similar news area and reclassifying it as "Opinion." I complied, as s good sport.
Now in "Political News," I see the most drippingly partisan hogwash passing as "News" and even getting a "Good Stuff" flag from NP editors. It belongs in "Opinion," but nobody heeds requests to do so.
EDITORS: Please address this mess. You're sure to go down the drain if you don't. The editor who recently tagged a grossly misplaced op-ed piece as "Good Stuff" in "Political News" did not bother to reply to my private message. Wonderful example of accountability ...
Add a comment
Comments (11)
- reply
ryanat 14:49 on February 1st, 2008
I'm not familiar with the particulars of the situation you describe or which editor you dealt with (perhaps you want to message me privately).
The best practice which we work to uphold is that if a story is published in the politics category and contains opinion it must be tagged as such. In that case, a story may appear in the politics category and is identified as opinion in the tags.
You're right that sometimes contributors don't heed the requests. That being said, we work to maintain a consistent policy.
If you notice an article which contains opinion but is not tagged as such please notify a staff editor.
at 14:58 on February 1st, 2008
I understand as I wonder if I have added opionion to my stories in politics. I really think that opinion should be broken down into CATs like, Poltical Opionion, etc. When I am doing facts such a political results from a state, sometimes, within the text, I say something like, "I think Giuliani will drop out here or Huckabee could be a spoiler for Romney", what do I do? I guess it comes down to is it a fact, am I presetning all sides as I see them, what is my secondary gain in writing this?
I have shared with some that it is very apparent which candidate they are supporting and suguest at least a compare and contrast between others.
Honestly, I am probably guilty of this at times. My projections of possible outcomes are opionion based on statistical analysis. I just worry that folks won't fine me there. Like I stated before I think NP should think of expanding opionion to several opionion CATS. Al
at 15:10 on February 1st, 2008
Politisite,
Anyone completely objective must be made of granite. I have never read anything remotely crass in your pieces. Projections are reasonable speculations, as you say. Comparisons are logical analyses. Thinking out loud and asking to-the-point rhetorical questions add spice to a story. There is a lot of civil and artistic leeway allowed in a conscientious political news story.
On the other hand, crass is as crass does, as in these two examples from the story to which I referred (and which I will not name here, in consideration of the author -- I did send Ryan the direct link in a private message, however). These comments refer to John Edwards, at the moment he left the presidential race:
"Ah, the demagogue who would be king has seen the futility of his ways"
"And rabble-rousing doesn't qualify as inspiration."
Un-ac-ceptable.
at 18:28 on February 1st, 2008
I wish I had your command of the language! Yes, my gosh, I love how we negate by our use of liberal, moderate, conservative. But, "Ah, the demagogue who would be king has seen the futility of his ways" All I said was, " Edwards Quits" you right , OP-in-ion.
I looked at your resume again and there is no way it is true, Began work at the Beaufort County (South Carolina) Library, Yeah.. Right!
I must have been writing to you when Ryan was, as I don't remember his post there before.
at 16:20 on February 2nd, 2008
The librarian line is one of the scraps of truth on my bio sheet. For proof, go to http://www.scla.org/AwardsCommittee/Awards and look under "Outstanding Librarian Award" for 2004. Say the name you see there in rapid alternation with my nom de NP, denseatoms. The awful truth with emerge.
I agree, too -- labels are good for boxes and jars and cans of stuff whose ingredients can be measured down to the trace weight, but for politics -- nope.
at 19:41 on February 3rd, 2008
I thought you would chuckle when I said that! I picked out the most true statement in the Resume. No wonder your are so well versed. What we live 160 Miles apart
at 06:46 on February 4th, 2008
DenseAtoms, a quick comment. It's not that you as a person, must be totally objective (which is, IMHO, impossible for any normal human being) but that ethically, you choose to take action in as objective a manner as you possibly can.
That objectivity is the foundation of any ethical transaction (example: the doctor should prescribe the best medicine for you, not the medicine that reps have promised "bonuses" for using). It is the hallmark of good, professional journalism--and is sorely lacking in much of today's media, which has become overwhelmed with the current rise in narcissism and lack of core ethical values.
I began my professional writing career, as a journalist, at age 16. I was literally raised by some wonderful, sharp, incisive, often-truthfully-brutal, and ethical editors who understood and taught objectivity. A good reporter can passionately belive that candidate "X" is the best one, but also provide fair and balanced coverage of "Y" and "Z" too.
There's a difference between hard news, feature news and editorials. Unfortunately, the rise of narcissism and "me me me" and "everyone's a media star" in the 1990's, which has become an explosion today, has produced two generations at least, and an emerging culture in which ethical, truthful, and careful choices in clearly presenting as valid news or editorial are laughed at as "out-dated." But--not by all. I'm beginning to see signs, in some media outlets, of the old core values fighting back.
at 13:05 on February 4th, 2008
PEP: you know what has happened since the 90s, THe MSM is in compitition with bloggers who don't have the same standards you are talking about. In an era of instant news, folk have forgotten about source data and confirming stories with fact checkers. When we were little, "I stated in Radio at 16", things were differant, we were mentored and tought, some, like my brother, have degrees and had ethics as part of thier training. The race to be first has edged past being right.
at 15:53 on February 4th, 2008
So..we all get to decide. Do we wish to bow to the mob and be "first" or do we wish to do things ethically and right? I think the choice is simple and easy. Like all fads, blogging without quality and ethics will soon fade away. The best will learn and rise to good standards; the others won't.
at 06:56 on February 4th, 2008
Dense Atoms, a separate issue you raised:
"Now in "Political News," I see the most drippingly partisan hogwash
passing as "News" and even getting a "Good Stuff" flag from NP editors.
It belongs in "Opinion," but nobody heeds requests to do so."
True. There are so many varying standards around NP that a double standard would be a major step forward. I've seen some contributor get hassled for reprinting an entire copyrighted article--even if highlighted--while a senior staff member does the same thing. And, of course, then everyone with an orange crown lines up to GS their buddy.
at 10:50 on February 4th, 2008
I wish the editors would resolve these issues among themselves. They are off-putting to contrbutors. I have been here at NP since July, and have seen a big turnaround in contributors. Many may get bored with being a "Crowd Powered" writer, but I suspect others are confused or discouraged by the discrepancies.
One thing for sure, though: it has been a good thing indeed to see a muzzle slapped on the epidemic of flaming that hit NP late last year. Now if we could only agree on the best places to put things.