The continuing energy crisis in California has created an almost insatiable demand for information. People want to know what happens, why and — in particular — who should be blamed for the current dilemma.
For several months the ombudsman’s office (and the newsroom) have been peppered with reader requests for more information, clearer explanations and better public accountability for events in the current crisis.
No matter how many stories The Bee publishes on the subject, there seems to be an appetite for more. A quick check of the electronic files shows an average of three stories (or letters or brief items) every day have been about the energy crisis. Hundreds have been published in the past six months.
But the crisis has proved difficult to understand for many readers, and so last Sunday The Bee provided a retrospective on the current situation. A single article was published under the Page 1 headline “How Californians got burned.” The story did not generate a wave of reaction, angry or positive, to the letters column or the ombudsman’s office.
It did prompt a lot of positive responses — primarily through e-mail — directly to those who did the work. Projects Editor Amy Pyle estimates that the lead writer on the story, Sam Stanton, heard from more than 100 readers, many thanking The Bee for helping clarify an exceedingly complex subject. Stanton described reader responses as “almost overwelmingly positive.”
Reader Linda Roth, a retired state worker, sent me a copy of her note that said that the article was “cogent and thorough,” and praised Stanton for providing “a clear picture of all the events which shaped where we are today.”
Reader Doug Willis said that Stanton’s story “on the roots of the current energy crisis is the best and clearest I have read (and I do read extensively) on the subject.”
Reader Homer Ibser acknowledged that a lot of effort went into the article, but faulted The Bee “because the author evidently doesn’t understand the language appropriate for describing his subject.” His note was the only complaint this office received.
For the record, Stanton got credit as the primary writer of the article but it should be noted here — as it was in the article — that the reporting was done by a team of people with significant and differing expertise: John Hill, Dale Kasler, Stuart Leavenworth and David Whitney all made major contributions.
Projects Editor Pyle said that when the idea of trying to bring perspective to the complex crisis was first discussed, Stanton suggested he was not the best person to write it because he had not been covering the subject. That was exactly why he was selected, she said: to bring a fresh perspective on the information reported by The Bee’s experts in Business, Metro and the bureaus.
Another consideration was that the staff writers who cover the energy crisis every day were busy meeting the demands of daily coverage. But Stanton was free to take a step back, work with the experts and bring it all together.
Comment: The article was a model of well-written explanatory journalism. It provided history, specific details and anecdotal evidence in a way that informed and benefited readers. The paragraphs about the dentist doodling on a napkin, and figuring out how to drive up energy prices through gaming tactics, was worth more than a thousand words of technical data.
Reader Roth had the right idea: This was exactly the sort of perspective article readers expect from The Bee, and deserve. Without repeating every detail, the story delivered information to readers in a way that enhanced their understanding of complex public issues, and enabled readers to decide what should be done by the responsible public officials.
Reader Roth said this: “I appreciate the fact that The Bee understands it has readers who want this caliber of information, and that you were given the ability to research and put together what turned out to be just an excellent example of that reader regard. Thanks!”
Ahoy, there…
The “On the Job” feature in the Monday Business section provoked a quick note from reader Harold E. Wiest.
The article was about a woman who does tattoos and body art, including piercing body parts. The article said customers can inquire “about the cost of a naval ring or a tongue stud.” Well, not unless you are inquiring about attending the Naval Academy to earn the ring. (I have no knowledge about studs.) Wiest wants The Bee folks to understand “the difference between naval and navel.” Good idea.
One is an adjective pertaining to the Navy, as in boats, sailors and the ocean. The other is a noun, the name of a body part generally located below the chest and sometimes called a belly button.
Yes, editors know the difference, but the spell-checker apparently doesn’t.
Top five complaints
This won’t come as a surprise to Bee readers, but your concerns about the news are shared by people all over the world.
Here is a list of the “top five complaints” collected by Miriam Pepper of the Kansas City Star from ombudsmen and reader representatives — from four continents — who belong to the Organization of News Ombudsmen:
- Accuracy: wrong information, spelling, grammar, and missing context.
- Bias/slant: mixed facts and opinions; political bias; and sections of the local community ignored or not covered well.
- Page 1 story selection disagreements: concerns about sensationalism, headlines that don’t fit the story, good or bad taste, immediacy vs. depth, popularization of the press and negativity.
- Not enough good news, or not enough local news.
- Privacy and ethics concerns.
Other categories of complaints that are common around the globe included photographs that are too graphic or violent, rejected letters to the editor, coverage of the Mideast, late delivery of the paper, printing problems and people seeking help, advice or historical or archived information.
In Europe, readers and viewers express more interest in international news, particularly that from the Mideast. Privacy seems to be a bigger concern in Britain. Ethical issues seem to dominate recent discussions in Portugal.
Bee readers have spoken out on all these categories in the past but recently expressed more concerns about features in the paper, including comics and puzzles. That came in the wake of the redesign, which relocated some favorite columns and comics. That may prove to be a passing concern as editors modify the changes to meet reader demands, or as readers get used to the changes.
Tune in, again
And on the subject of change, this coming week the “Tune in Tonight” column will return to the television listing page in Scene, brought back by the editors after many readers made it clear they valued that feature and used it often.
