My questions all begin with “why.”
Why did so many readers react so negatively to last Sunday’s story about extreme motorcycling? Why was that anger directed at the Akron Beacon Journal?
Why did the package of photos and stories lead so many of you to believe the paper was promoting this activity and glorifying its participants?
Why was there such a wide disconnect between what the paper intended and how you reacted?
Rather than defend or condemn the story, as public editor, I need to figure out what happened — and why.
Listen to this quote from Jane Walker Snider, a businesswoman from Akron: “I consider this absolutely irresponsible journalism to treat these idiots like folk heroes. No amount of verbiage can balance the glamorized photos that you ran.”
Douglas Hausknecht, an associate professor at the University of Akron, sent this in an e-mail: “No one can read the story that was printed, with the action photos, as any form of indictment of the practice. Where were the photos of wrecked bikes or mangled bodies?”
Several readers suggested — make that insisted — that the photos were staged. Not true, according to Susan Kirkman, assistant managing editor for presentation.
“We were very clear that we did not want anything set up for our benefit,” she said. “These were the same stunts they do every night. We tried to be sure we were documenting their activities and not instigating them.”
Hausknecht raised an interesting point, however. What if something had gone wrong during the ride?
“Suppose a driver, spooked by the sideshow, became distracted and didn’t pay attention at one of Route 8′s notorious access ramps. Suppose the collision killed someone.
“Would the photographer and writer expect to be treated as accessories? Would there have been remorse? Would the headline have read `Beacon Journal Commits Murder on Route 8?’ ”
I have to admit these questions trouble me. Journalists often are present in dangerous situations — it’s their job to record and reflect the world around us. But if an innocent motorist and her two children had died during this “ride-along,” I know that I would have felt some measure of culpability. That it didn’t happen really doesn’t change anything.
As Greg Taylor of Cuyahoga Falls said, “You put people on the road at risk to get your story. I think that’s appalling.”
The photos also helped give the package the look and feel of a feature story, I believe, perhaps sending the unintended signal that the activity was condoned.
For many readers, the photos were too in-focus, too close up, too perfectly framed to be anything other than staged. The technical capabilities of the Beacon Journal’s $5,000, auto-focus, auto-everything cameras left many with the perception of posed photos.
Although the headline shouted, “Extreme Danger,” running it in blue ink reinforced the notion for some readers that this was not a story about a serious problem.
That the anger was directed at the paper doesn’t surprise reader Andy Caruso of Cuyahoga Falls. “People have very strong opinions about what is good and moral and right, and what isn’t. We want our paper to agree with us, and when they print articles about stuff we don’t like, and (gasp) have the audacity to feature it on the front page, we think they are printing it because they support it.”
Not all readers reacted negatively. Jennifer Zajac of Akron wrote: “As far as people’s comments that the Beacon was `glorifying’ the sport through the photo and placement, I don’t understand that. Large photos of forest fires, kids playing in sprinklers or bombed cities don’t seem to be construed that way.”
But many more readers lastweek were sounding like Steve Grabowski of Fairlawn. “Will the Beacon Journal run a story about drug dealers showing their lifestyle and how `cool’ they think it is?” he said. “If so, will it be shown in the same way as this story, without clearly stating that This Is Wrong, It Should Not Be Done, Nor Should It Be Tolerated?”
Readers Mary Hensley of Akron and Kathy Baker of Kent both objected to telling the story from the point of view of the daredevils.
Hensley wanted the criminal behavior stressed. “Write about the devastation, the risk to others, the plight of those whose daredevil attempts ended in a coma or permanently destroyed body.”
For Hensley, the photo didn’t capture the danger, it captured the thrill.
Baker suggested a stronger focus on the danger to others, rather than the danger to the riders. “It’s hard even for me, an absolute `bleeding heart,’ to care much about what happens to them, because this is such a blatant case of someone with a death wish.”
Other readers, such as Cliff Soudil of Ravenna, examined every word of the lengthy story and found little hint of condemnation. “I went back and read it three more times,” he said, “and I don’t find anything in there that doesn’t glorify them.”
Calling the chief stuntman a “regular guy” with wife and child angered many regular readers who see him as a criminal. Calling the stunts a “sport” rankled readers who view it as nothing more than criminal activity.
The calls numbered more than 100. That’s not a lot when you consider 400,000 people read the Sunday paper. But many people said they spoke for their families, friends and co-workers.
All the callers said basically the same thing. In the words of Pat Hardwick of Stow, “This belongs in a tabloid…. Shame on you.”
And yet, the words of Beacon Journal Publisher Jim Crutchfield also ring true. “Problems don’t get solved until they are exposed,” he said in defending the story.
Some of you see that. From an e-mail from Lori and Jim Karasek of Hartville: “Hello readers? Do you want our community’s paper to ignore problems? We don’t. We want our newspaper to tell us about problems in order that we can do something about them.”
Anyone who has spent any time on Route 8 has seen these moto-maniacs, and now maybe something will get done. The police have promised a crackdown. Newspapers report. The community takes notice. Change occurs. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Was there a problem with the story? No, the story was expertly crafted. Were the photos sensational or manipulated? No, the photos were provocative and illustrative. Were the headlines inaccurate? No, the headlines gave readers a clear sense of the issue.
Put them all together, though, and somehow the message sent was not the message received. That kind of disconnect shouldn’t happen.
————————————————————————
Send comments about the Beacon Journal to Public Editor Mike Needs. Phone: 330-996-3860. E-mail: mneeds@thebeaconjournal.com.
