Public editor: Readers provide vital suggestions about coverage
I’ve had the privilege of serving as the public editor for almost three years, learning from the thoughts and opinions of tens of thousands of readers.
I regret my course work is ending.
When I started with the column, I confess I coveted it in part as an opportunity to share my supposed wealth of journalistic wisdom with readers and to prod the newspaper to move closer to my image of what I thought it should be.
I soon learned how wrong I was.
Readers of The Oregonian are devoted, wise and thoughtful. It was your wisdom that taught me, and provided insight for others at the newspaper.
In thousands of exchanges with readers, I learned more in the past three years than I have in more than 25 years of journalism.
Perhaps most important, I’ve learned that readers want and expect the best from journalists all the time.
You rightly criticize us if we’re not aggressive enough in holding those in power accountable — whether it’s Neil Goldschmidt or President Bush or the Oregon Legislature.
You chastise the press when the most critical decisions, such as going to war, don’t receive the appropriate skepticism and attention.
You remind us that we’ve failed to fulfill our role in democracy when our reporting on presidential campaigns is mired in trivial dust-ups or our coverage of land-use ballot measures leaves questions unanswered.
You applaud the newspaper when it conveys compassion, providing public service or personal connections when a hurricane hits or a family loses a home or loved one.
You demand that we address key public policy questions, such as why we are failing students, through our watchdog role.
You are aware of journalistic standards and point out when we overuse anonymous sources, fail to conduct background searches of subjects or leave gaps in stories because of inadequate questioning.
And when I asked for your opinions on the First Amendment, more than 900 of you took the time to write, mostly emphasizing the responsibility that accompanies that right to a free press.
The insight you gave me will inform me in my new position as the newspaper’s senior editor for online. The Oregonian is shifting from primarily serving readers through print to a newsroom that serves readers and viewers however they receive their news.
As I move to the new job, I wanted to thank you for this opportunity to learn and grow. I apologize to those of you to whom I was slow to respond or who might have slipped through the cracks. And for those who vehemently disagreed with me or the newspaper, I hope there are no hard feelings because I so appreciate your passion and that you care so much about the newspaper or the community, even if my words failed to express that appreciation.
I urge you to keep letting the newspaper know what you think of its coverage, as I worry that the voices of thoughtful readers are being drowned out by those with partisan agendas. Throughout my tenure as public editor, I often was whipsawed by those on the right and those on the left alleging bias, generally equally battered from both sides.
The dream of every public editor, whose tenure at The Oregonian is usually three years, is that readers question the newspaper’s content openly but without the blinders created by their own political prism: What perspective is missing? What information is lacking to help you be an informed voter? What do you need to know to thrive in the community? What is in the newspaper that you enjoy reading? What other subjects does the newspaper need to pursue for you?
Your answers, as I’ve learned, will make us better.
