Over the past few months, editors have been experimenting with new ways to present stories. Unsurprisingly, readers have been taking notice.
“I’m looking at how you did this coverage of the State of the Union speech today,” said a caller Wednesday. You used to always have an article about it on the front page, but [this time] you did these ‘five things you need to know.’ That’s different. I haven’t decided if I like it.”
Two other callers were certain they didn’t. “I feel you’re picking the things your writers thought were important instead of just telling us what he said. … I did like the excerpts from the speech on Page 9, though. That should have been on the front.”
Several readers also wondered why the short piece of text on the front page was written in a more conversational tone than a normal news story. Page One editor Greg Farmer said: “We wanted the news to be written the way you would tell your friends and neighbors about what happened. We wanted to reflect the importance of the news while also telling the story in a way that was interesting and, if possible, fun to read.”
These new reporting techniques won’t all be home runs. I look to readers to tell me what they think works and also what gets in the way.
Several readers thought Tuesday’s front page blew an incident at the Jackson County courthouse out of proportion. The Star reported on a physical altercation between Legislators Bob Stringfield and Dan Tarwater with the headline Courthouse smackdown. The package stretched across four of the six columns on the page, taking up roughly half of the news space on the cover.
“With that headline, you’re turning hard news into entertainment,” said caller Dorothy. You dont have to pander to us. Just give us the news, and leave the clever headlines to the talk radio hosts.”
I agree with the readers on this one. Stringfield was arrested and removed in handcuffs, and the fracas was certainly a “talker” around Kansas City. Good story but I dont think it quite merited the huge, jokey headline and two-photo centerpiece treatment.
Three different readers alerted me to what I thought was a very subtle distinction in the Jan. 24 paper. To illustrate a story about large protests by abortion opponents around the United States, editors chose an Associated Press photograph that depicted several protesters, along with one demonstrator for abortion rights. The counter-protester was pictured among three anti-abortion protesters, who were in the foreground of the photo.
The problem? The photographer focused his lens on the abortion-rights protester, whose sign and T-shirt slogan were sharp and clear. The abortion opponents, closer to the camera, were blurry. Messages on their signs were only partially legible.
Looking at the photo again, the difference is quite obvious, and I see how readers might easily infer bias.
News editor Yvette Walker told me the photo was chosen because it was one of the few wire images that also showed some of the counter-demonstrators that day.
That’s a fair consideration. But in this case, I think the photo ironically muddied the water.
