Ellington

In his "we do community journalism, too; really, we do" column today, Clarion-Ledger Executive Editor Ronnie Agnew makes an interesting statement about his paper's Web site that we believe deserves a bit of a factcheck. When discussing his paper's stories about the state's health department, he states: "Some 60,000 of you have have used our online forums, now called StoryChat, to offer comments on that investigative series."

Huh? As of this second, there are only 3,919 registered users on the CL's forums, and you have to be registered to post. In their recent nightmare switchover to a new forum that doesn't allow users to link outside the Ledge, they say they transferred all registered users over. So then, how do 3,919 users become "60,000 of you" commenting on that one story? This sounds like a bit of false advertising to me. Anyone think Mr. Agnew will clarify what he meant? Run a correction, maybe?

Previous Comments

ID

107864

Comment

Two other intriguing tidbits. In this column Agnew ironically writes the following: I checked our own newspaper to see what editors had decided was the important news of the day. We had a story on a drop in test scores at Jackson's Forest Hill High School, Mayor Frank Melton's trial for libel in Meridian and the city looking for crime solutions in its blighted areas. Why ironic? Because one of that newspaper's worst examples of bad journalism ever was their not reporting about that Meridian lawsuit, and their role in it, during the mayoral campaign last year (and their subsequent glowing endorsement of a mayor that they knew, or should have known, was lying to a judge). The paper itself was sitting on vital story then for months; now he has the nerve to brag about it being on their front page (now that the Ledge was dropped from the suit)!?! Tsk, tsk. Also on the Web stats front, I thought it was kind of interesting that the StoryChat site shows that the most users ever online at once on their forums was 27 on Sept. 28. That is extremely low for a national corporate newspaper. Just sayin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-15T14:01:15-06:00

ID

107865

Comment

It also tickles me, and alternatively chaps my butt, that Mr. Agnew spends all those paragraphs trying to tell us Mississippi idiots what "local" news is. Certainly, if it was up to them, people would think that it meant cursory reporting, constant sensationalism of crime and lifting people out of context in order to make them fit their narrative. Uh, Mr. Agnew, we-the-readers know what good local reporting is. Maybe it's y'all who need to do a bit of soul-searching. BTW, when are y'all going to "report" that the attorney general is investigating your TDN distribution scheme -- and let the local publishers that your publisher implied (in an ad in your paper) were engaged in petty vandalism have the chance to publisher a letter in your paper refuting those serious implications, huh? Media around the country are covering the TDN scheme—and speaking of the First Amendment, Editor & Publisher magazine even editoralized that y'all's scheme violates the First Amendment rights of other publishers and told you to "bring it to a halt." Why isn't this "local" news, Mr. Agnew? Guess it's not "local" news if it makes the Ledge look bad. Sounds a lot like your approach to the Meridian lawsuit when you were involved: Ignore it and hope it goes away. It won't. And all the condescending editor's notes (and accusatory house ads) in the Sunday edition in the world cannot hide what y'all aren't telling your readers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-15T14:34:27-06:00

ID

107866

Comment

It also tickles me, and alternatively chaps my butt, that Mr. Agnew spends all those paragraphs trying to tell us Mississippi idiots what "local" news is. Certainly, if it was up to them, people would think that it meant cursory reporting, constant sensationalism of crime and lifting people out of context in order to make them fit their narrative. Donna, sorry to hear that your but is chapped. :-P Anyway, I get sooooo tired of the focus on the negative in all media outlets. They'll throw us a bone every now and then to shut us up, but I'm tired of cultural events and positive people being overlooked so often. No, I'm not saying "Don't bring me no bad news" like Mabel King in The Wiz, but there must be a balance. Folks love juicy gossip, and it's easy to get your next fixin' just by watching or reading the news. Sure, it may the viewer/reader think, "Well, at least I'm not like them," but what price are we paying? Low morale? Increased apathy? No wonder people are so sad. I think that's why I love educational television, how-to books and inspirational stuff. It's a nice escape for me.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-10-18T11:50:45-06:00

ID

107867

Comment

You're right, L.W. But the problem is not that they *report* bad things that happen; it's how everything is cast in a sensationalistic, desperate light. (Go back to PerceptionGate™ for a perfect example.) Or, all the crap about crime being the No. 1 issue that has to be fixed before we can redevelop downtown! Sensationalistic media are experts at making people feel powerless. And then the sensationalism then drowns out the coverage they manage to do about positive stuff (which is often so cliche-ridden that it's not interesting anyway). You could call it a journalism of desperation—which is extremely shortsighted. As newspaper readershop drops, coverage gets more sensationalistic to grab every person they can. But that means that readers are going to keep turning elsewhere. So then they get angry that competitors such as the JFP are building reader and advertiser loyalty. So do they go back and figure out how to be a paper that people are proud of and want to *read*? No, they try to take away our distribution channels. They are only delaying the inevitable with such strategies. I personally think it's a death spiral, especially for corporate media that are so afraid of their shadow (or a conservative advertiser) that they feel they *can't* do good journalism or they'll lose what they've managed to keep. And their habit of treating people like we're stupid will be the final nail if they don't figure out how to stop doing it. It's the trap of being too big and too focused on corporate profit margins. They're digging their own graves.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-18T12:03:49-06:00

ID

107868

Comment

They are only delaying the inevitable with such strategies. I personally think it's a death spiral, especially for corporate media that are so afraid of their shadow (or a conservative advertiser) that they feel they *can't* do good journalism or they'll lose what they've managed to keep. And their habit of treating people like we're stupid will be the final nail if they don't figure out how to stop doing it. Hey, if they don't want to change, as long as papers like the JFP keeps doing what it does, they'll either adapt or die. Point blank.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-10-18T12:15:17-06:00