Working in the middle of the relationship between readers and Star-Telegram staff yields daily perspective on what those two groups assume about each other, and take for granted, and how each side’s credibility waxes and wanes accordingly.
Readers complain about coverage decisions, factual errors and format changes. Journalists express bewilderment over disconnects with the public in areas such as context, usage and story placement.
A question haunts me: With awesome media and communications resources these days, why does mutual understanding remain a pipe dream?
Perhaps the 18th-century cleric Joseph Priestley had the answer when he said, “The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.”
Here’s a look at some of the most persistent reader-related assumptions that lead to misunderstanding.
Page 1 is read closely. Statistics say so, and we believe so, which is why we publish important announcements on Page 1A such as the one on Friday, April 20, that stated: “Time Inc. has discontinued the publication of Life magazine. You can find the final edition inside today’s Star-Telegram.”
This escaped notice, as does other front-page content such as news of the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., a story we were accused of ignoring. Many Fridays later, readers continue to complain that Life isn’t in their Friday papers. Truth is, lack of revenue choked Life.
Columns are biased. This complaint bewilders journalists. Columns may make news, but they are not news stories. Whether they focus on sports, business, political affairs or local issues, columns are a writer’s pure, biased opinion, and the best columns are rich with facts and provocative views aimed at stirring up discussion.
Editorials are unsigned. A cowardly practice, some readers insist, even when it’s explained that editorials present the Star-Telegram’s institutional view as developed by the Editorial Board and are crafted in a collaborative effort that emerges from argument and writing among several members.
Examples of confusion on the table aren’t limited to readers by any means. Journalists contribute to the dissonance, most often on an elementary level when they forget readers’ capabilities:
Readers know facts. For instance, many know how to spell Sen. Hillary Clinton’s name, and they know she’s a Democrat from New York and a candidate for the presidency. When we publish content about a Republican nominee named “Hilary,” as we did this month, readers justifiably complain.
Readers can alphabetize. We corrected our list of international cities’ weather after hearing comments such as this one: “Know it’s a bit trivial, but on the weather page, I believe that Lisbon should come before London rather than after Moscow in the European cities list.”
Readers know grammar. They catch abuses of the use of a instead of an and various other lapses. “On Page 11D,” one reader e-mailed, “an ad … contains an error. The plural of demo is spelled demo’s.” Clearly another case of possessed possessive.
Such is the wreckage in that two-way reader/journalist relationship, but we are heartened when we consider why we know about the problems: We’ve talked about them.
The question is: Have both sides listened to each other?
As actor Jeff Daly observed, “Two monologues do not make a dialogue.”
