Dozens of readers who marched for peace in the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. parade said they were astonished and flabbergasted the following morning when they read in The San Diego Union-Tribune their segment had numbered “more than 100.”
Did I mention angry?
In a flood of e-mail, I was told that members of the San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice had conducted their own count before the marchers joined the parade; they came up with 1,200 participants, 12 times the number reported in the Union-Tribune.
How did this happen, marchers wanted to know. That’s the same question asked by Union-Tribune editor Karin Winner who expects staff members to report events accurately.
What was the reporter thinking, readers asked. Certainly, “more than 100″ was technically correct. But, to use that number to describe the size of the crowd that marched against possible war with Iraq was misleading, they said with justification. They accused the writer of being inept and biased and having more motives than the grains of sand at Pacific Beach. And those were the kind remarks.
Some accused the newspaper of making a deliberate error because the Union-Tribune is known for its usually conservative editorial page philosophy.
Yet, I know how important it is to editor Winner and other journalists including those involved in the error to keep the news columns free from bias and from being influenced by editorial opinions.
If it wasn’t bias and it wasn’t deliberate, what was it? It was an error on the part of the reporter who estimated there were more than 100 but didn’t try to get a better reading. The editor who worked the story is also to blame for not questioning the number and asking why a count of participants in the peace contingent was included in the story and not for any other group. Questions about why the number was noteworthy might have led to another look.
The error and its fallout equal a hard lesson for journalists involved. They know the error affected the Union-Tribune’s credibility and professionalism. Both are highly prized by this newspaper.
Those who participated in the parade also objected to the story because it quoted criticism of the protest. Carol Jahnkow, executive director of the Peace Resource Center of San Diego and who works with the coalition, said the criticism was not representative of how the peace marchers were received. “Everyone in the march was quite amazed at the warm reception,” she said.
Reasonable minds may differ about the content of the story, but everyone would expect that the story would accurately reflect the size of the peace contingent. I know of no other peace demonstration of that size in San Diego in the recent past.
The Super Bowl is history now, but some readers objected to the story last Monday about Dion Rich, the Point Loma resident who, over the years, has crashed 33 Super Bowls, numerous Academy Award presentations and Olympics game venues, and has been photographed with the famous, including Bill Clinton, Oliver North, Dustin Hoffman and Gwyneth Paltrow.
The story was about his intentions to crash yesterday’s Super Bowl at Qualcomm Stadium. “A sneak’s preview,” said the headline at the bottom of the Metro section. Assistant Metro Editor John Cannon said he thought the story would be of interest to readers in view of the stringent security measures in place for the game. Also, Rich is local. His much-publicized success as a gate-crasher started long before terrorism became a household word in this country. Yet, despite the stringent security at last year’s Super Bowl in New Orleans, Rich managed to sneak into the stadium. Monday’s story said he was hoping to do the same this year in San Diego.
But some Union-Tribune readers didn’t appreciate last week’s story for its quirkiness. Norman Reed of Spring Valley was critical of the way it was presented, questioning what he was going to tell his two children about the behavior he finds unacceptable.
Also objecting to the story was Vytas Tarulis, a Carlsbad resident who equated gate-crashing to “unlawful entry and misappropriation of services, no better than embezzlement, shoplifting or trespassing.”
Reed was critical of the newspaper for not taking a moral stand on Rich’s behavior. Tarulis and others criticized the article because it, in their opinion, glorified Rich. The article said the NFL declined to comment. The only person who was interviewed was Rich.
It’s not surprising that there are people who are critical of Rich’s exploits. They see his actions as a means to grab personal publicity and the media as all too complicit.
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.
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
