Compared with six groups of MSNBC.com staff members who evaluated the same hypothetical list of stories, readers who voted in our You be the editor exercise think Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) and cell phones deserve less attention while welfare and educational savings accounts are more newsworthy. And judging by the email Ive seen, those same readers dont think much at all of so-called water cooler stories that may generate widespread discussion, but are otherwise of little lasting significance.
In case you missed it , this exercise invited readers to make the kinds of news judgments that MSNBC.com editors make every day. They were asked to pick their lead article and four others for their front page from a list of 10 story summaries, and then to compare their picks with those of a group of MSNBC.com staff members who evaluated the same summaries as part of a journalism workshop. (If you havent voted already, you may still participate using this link.
The only difference is that if you read this column, youll know ahead of time how the staff members and other readers voted something those who responded to the survey initially did not.)
A typical news day
The workshop exercise was meant to stimulate discussion about news values, not to mirror a typical news day. Some of the 10 stories on the list were completely fictional; others were based on real events that may have occurred over a number of days. Also, since reader participants in the exercise were self-selected, there is no way to know statistically how their news judgment compares with those of the general public or users of this Web site.
Those and other caveats aside, the MSNBC.com staff members rated an article about Condit reportedly admitting an affair with missing former Washington intern Chandra Levy and one about a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in a dead heat for their lead. Behind those, in order, came a story about the FDA revamping its system for approving generic and homeopathic drugs, one about the governor of New York signing a bill banning hand-held cellular phone use while driving, and in another tie, an article about the U.S. House approving a significant cut in welfare payments and a fictional rampage by an elephant who escaped from the San Diego Zoo.
Scoring the news
As of this writing, 2,640 readers have voted on the same list of articles, and Ive scored the results the same way I did the votes of the teams of MSNBC.com staffers – i.e., 5 points for a top story vote, 4 for second place, etc. The result: The Tel Aviv bombing story was a clear winner among these respondents, the welfare story second, FDA third, Condit fourth, and a story about a proposed amendment expanding the existing Education Savings Account, or ESA, program fifth.
Most of the email Ive seen from participants has been positive about the experiment, if not about the news judgment of MSNBC.com staff members.
Definitely an interesting exercise, wrote Aaron D. LeBlanc. We do not necessarily agree on what should and shouldnt be on the front page. But that is not the point of the exercise. I do not envy the owner of this task on a daily basis. The editor has to make a decision, doubtless with a list of potential stories that change by the minute in the electronic age.
Reader Scott Fox offered his own rules for evaluating stories: Never lead off with violence; what has the most impact on the (largest) number of people; have a nice mix of good and bad news; inform, then emphasize good news. Fox said his front page led with welfare and followed with FDA, the Tel Aviv bombing, ESA and a piece about Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas announcing they would make a fourth Indiana Jones film.
The editorial divide
Some readers wanted to leave editing to the editors. A journalist cannot simultaneously posit what s/he must inform the people and also ask the people to judge what they shall be informed of (sic), wrote Ashwin Mahesh. You be the editorLet the readers be the readers!
“This only confirms to me the general slack and lack of any worthwhile standards modern journalists hold,” said reader John Nowicki.
Why would I want to try to edit the news when I pay you guys to do it? asked Brent Jones rhetorically. Oops! I forgot. I dont pay you anything and you still do it.
The biggest criticism reflected in my mail dealt with feature or entertainment-oriented stories.
This only confirms to me the general slack and lack of any worthwhile standards modern journalists hold, wrote John Nowicki. It took me all of one minute to split off the hard news articles and place them on the 1-5 listing. Meanwhile, your focus groups of professionals in the field managed to introduce such valued concepts as water cooler stories and other such inanity to the process, as though those couldnt just go in a lower column. What a hideous joke.
Added Sarah Manvel: Screw the water cooler news. For that news, I go to the water cooler. News outlets such as yourself have a responsibility to represent the events of the day legislative or not that people will not otherwise hear about.
A related criticism dealt with the selection of the 10 articles from which participants were asked to make their selections.
Illusion of choice
The problem with the survey is that, like so much lately, it gives the illusion of choice, not actual choice, wrote Elizabeth Huergo. Youve already selected from an enormous amount of news the subset of ten items that you consider importantI think a journalists ethical burden, especially in a global age, is to inform, not pander to the lowest common denominator.
A couple of points here: First, the list of 10 stories was not meant to reflect what anybody at MSNBC.com or at the Committee for Concerned Journalists (which conducted the workshop) felt was most important. It was intentionally selected by the committee to trigger discussion among the staff about real news judgments it faces each day. That includes standards for evaluating news attributed to anonymous sources, for example, as well as making choices between hard news and more entertaining fare. Also, the MSNBC.com staffers did, in fact, choose five hard news stories for their front page. The only possible exception was their vote for the rampaging elephant story that tied for last place on their list.
Condit as news
Among the hard news stories, the biggest differences involved Condit, which each of the six teams of MSNBC.com staffers included among their top five and which finished tied for first, and Welfare, which finished tied with Bobo the elephant but was left off some staff lists.
I was surprised that your staffers consider the Condit story #1, wrote Matt Whitney. Its nothing but speculation and gossip.
Regarding welfare, reader Manvel said: Leaving out the welfare cuts is an immensely classist thing to do. What happened to journalism that spoke to and on behalf of everyone?
My bottom line on the exercise is that it did stimulate useful discussion both among MSNBC.com staffers and between the staff and readers. I hope we can do something similar again in the future, and meanwhile, thanks to all who participated, and particularly to those who shared their thoughts via email.
The original column, “You be the editor.”
