Learning the art of news judgment is not as easy these days as it once was.
One complicating factor is the need for heavily Anglo editors in a heavily Anglo news industry to cover minority cultures that they try to understand but may not fully comprehend.
Those editors’ decisions can result in coverage that minorities may criticize as prejudiced.
For example, the controversy over blacks’ resentment of the use of the word refugees to describe people fleeing Hurricane Katrina left some Anglo editors baffled at such a reaction to a term that was accurate — but viewed among many blacks as an insult to their citizenship. Accordingly, many news outlets, including the Star-Telegram, incorporated the use of evacuees.
Another instance emerged at the Star-Telegram during the coverage of Rosa Parks’ passing and developments related to the loss of the legendary champion for historic change in racial equality.
Two Page One packages and daily coverage inside the A section drew no complaints. However, two readers recoiled in anger when coverage of Ms. Parks’ funeral was carried Thursday on Page 10A with no mention on Page One.
In their view (and they claimed to be speaking for many people in the black community), we gave short shrift to the most important news of all: the funeral that climaxed the celebration of Ms. Parks’ life. To them, we had insulted Ms. Parks by downplaying her funeral.
Ms. Parks had not been forgotten by editors, but in their judgment a world of new developments had to be reported on Page One, which carries a content mix designed to reflect the interests of a wide range of people — regular and non-regular readers alike. Nevertheless, it would have been good and fitting had Thursday’s Page One referred readers to the funeral story on 10A.
That’s debatable in the subjective realm of editing, but such are the lessons in learning the art of news judgment.
Those lessons aren’t necessarily acquired amid momentous events. Learning to judge the importance of what may appear to be small matters is every bit as important because those stories make a difference in the extent to which we meet readers’ daily needs.
We know when we fall short of meeting those needs, because readers tell us. Here are a couple of examples.
When the Star-Telegram tells readers that a certain story is coming on a certain day, they expect us to keep our word. They see many “promos” in the paper. It’s a sales tool that’s also aimed at helping people plan their reading.
Helpful stuff, normally. But when something goes wrong with a promo, some readers question our competence.
Errors in promos usually are infrequent, but lately we had a string of them because of sagging communication among editors. Several readers complained. One wrote in an e-mail: “Why do you keep saying you’re going to have a story in the paper the next day that’s not there the next day?”
I can’t recall any editors who haven’t flubbed a promo now and then. It’s a painful oversight to endure, but corrective action follows.
Last week, managers refreshed promo procedures. A better system’s in place to keep editors apprised of what’s being promoted, and we won’t promote a story that’s not in hand.
Meanwhile, a variation on the “bias” theme popped up after we ran a story about a tragic accident involving a sport utility vehicle. Some folks’ hair stands on end when we connect SUVs with bad news. Believe it or not, in their view, we’re exhibiting anti-SUV bias.
Mentioning the SUV in the tragedy story was a matter of reporting a detail. We can’t help what the details are, but one reader didn’t see it that way.
“I can’t, for the life of me, see why you think that the fact that it was an ‘SUV’ has any bearing on anything, much less being part of the headline,” he wrote in a lengthy e-mail that concluded: “This is just another example of someone trying to write a story in a manner which they think will benefit society instead of simply trusting their readers with the facts.”
There was one recent occasion, however, when complaints of SUV bias were understandable.
A story about a fatal accident involving an SUV carried a headline that gave the vehicle human powers: “Teen-ager killed, 3 hurt when SUV runs red light.” We know that SUVs are incapable of thinking and acting on their own. They do what their drivers tell them to do unless a mechanical failure is to blame.
Just as guns ought not bear the blame for what bad people do with them, SUVs should not be blamed for what drivers do with them. Readers had good reason to suspect bias in the headline about that wreck.
So go lessons in news judgment. We pass. We fail. We try to grow stronger. Just like the world we cover.
