Writing on deadline is a journalistic necessity, but subjects of newspaper
articles know it sometimes can be days, weeks, even months between the time
of an interview and publication of the story.
In some cases, the gap can be even greater depending on the type of story.
Unlike breaking news, investigative stories, by their nature, can take
months, sometimes even years, to research and write.
Also, it’s a common practice for newspapers to write obituaries for public
figures in advance.
It is not just investigative stories and advance obituaries that don’t get
into print immediately. Sometimes there is a gap — although usually not as
great — between the time other types of articles are written and when they
appear.
News stories, such as articles about the David Westerfield trial and the
attack on terrorism, usually appear the day after the latest development is
known. But other stories, including features, can run anytime if there is
no time element.
That was the case Tuesday with a story about toy maker Corrado A. Sirugo,
described as a “modern-day Gepetto” who “works in a tiny, hidden studio,
fashioning timeless children’s games out of wood.” A photo of Sirugo
appeared with the article about the Little Italy businessman.
The day the article appeared, reporter Jonathan Heller learned from phone
calls and e-mails that Mr. Sirugo, 65, who lived alone and had no kin in
San Diego, had been found dead in his workshop four days earlier.
“He was so looking forward to the story,” Heller said of the man he
described as “sweet.” In fact, Heller spoke with Mr. Sirugo three times
after the initial interview. Although the toy maker asked when the article
would appear, Heller could not tell him. Heller knew it would be when there
were no breaking news stories to bump it. Reporters don’t determine when
stories will run.
Even so, it did not occur to Heller, who filed the story May 28, that he
should check on Mr. Sirugo. The toy maker, he said, did not appear to be in
ill health. Although he makes it a habit to read obituaries, Heller said he
did not see anything about Mr. Sirugo. In fact, there wasn’t anything until
the day after the original story appeared. As Wednesday’s obituary by
Heller explained, Mr. Sirugo’s children were en route from Italy and
planned to take their father’s ashes back with them.
“I’m sorry he never got to see it,” Heller said of the story that appeared
the day after he got back from a week of vacation. “I kind of feel like we
let him down.”
On Tuesday, he left Mr. Sirugo a message telling him the article was in the
paper. It was a message Mr. Sirugo would never hear.
[] [] []
Some San Diegans are listening to and reading every word about the
Westerfield trial. They are watching television, reading the newspaper,
listening to talk shows and participating in Internet chat groups.
Because coverage has been ubiquitous, nearly everyone is an expert. On
Tuesday, some readers scolded the Union-Tribune because a story quoted a
witness who, under oath testified twice that she found Westerfield and his
actions “creepy.” The first time, the defense objected, and the judge
instructed jurors to ignore the statement. The second time there was no
objection and no admonishment from the judge.
The newspaper shouldn’t have used the word “creepy” because the judge told
the jury to ignore it, some readers insisted. They did not mention the
second reference to the word and lack of objection. Instead, they
criticized the newspaper because they feared jurors might be influenced by
the seeing “creepy” in print. They are the very same jurors who heard the
statements in open court and who have been instructed not to read or watch
anything associated with the trial.
While the judge has a duty to instruct the jury, he cannot prevent the news
media from using statements made in open court, even those ruled
inadmissable. They are public record and fair game. Readers, after all,
are
not the jury.
The newspaper, on the other hand, has a duty to note when statements are
ruled inadmissable — especially if they use them in print.
Other readers complained because, on the same day, the front-page story
indicated that, in a statement to a witness, Westerfield said he left Dad’s
Cafe & Steakhouse at 9 p.m. Some readers argued that the witness said only
that Westerfield told her he left at 9 o’clock and that he didn’t specify
it was Dad’s.
True, but when taken in context, it was obvious that the witness was saying
that Westerfield was referring to the night of Feb. 1 when the child he is
accused of murdering was last seen.
Had Westerfield not been referring to Feb. 1 and to Dad’s, surely the
defense would have made an issue of it. Newspapers can’t print every word
uttered in court; by putting the testimony into context, the reporter did
readers who did not hear it a favor.
[] [] []
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the
policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss
accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers
representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619)
293-1525. Send e-mail to: readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
End-of-Story
