First, some lyrical comment on what news ombudsmen hear every day.
I borrowed the poem below from a column by Miriam Pepper, readers’ representative (aka ombudsman) of The Kansas City Star. In her column, she asked readers to guess the year the poem appeared.
My father says that the paper that he reads ain’t put up right.
He finds a lot of fault, he does, perusin’ it at night.
He says they ain’t a single thing in it worth while to read.
And that it doesn’t print the kind of stuff the people need.
He tosses it aside and says it’s strictly on the bum.
But you ought to hear him holler when the paper doesn’t come.
He reads about the weddings and he snorts like all get out.
He reads the social doin’s with a most derisive shout.
He says they make the paper for the women folks alone.
He reads about the parties and he’ll fume and fret and groan.
He says of information it don’t contain a crumb.
But you ought to hear him holler when the paper doesn’t come.
He’s always first to grab it, and he reads it plumb clean through.
He doesn’t miss an item or a want ad — that’s true.
He says they don’t know what we want, them durn newspaper guys.
I’m going to take a day sometime an’ go put’em wise.
Sometimes it seems as though they must be deaf and blind and dumb.
But you ought to hear him holler when the paper doesn’t come.
The complaints sound current and familiar, but Pepper reported that the poem, unsigned, was published April 9, 1920, in the Cherokee (Kan.) Sentinel. The dialect and meter are reminiscent of Midwest poet James Whitcomb Riley, but the poem isn’t listed among his works.
Besides, the poem doesn’t scan, so it probably was the creation of a newspaper editor.
* * *
Daily, Richmond Times-Dispatch readers take time to find “a lot of fault” or simply to make suggestions. I can’t put them to rhyme, but I’ll share a few selections from messages that have accumulated on my desk since midsummer.
Herbert Siewert had a suggestion related to the poem’s “kind of stuff people need.” He is a member of All Saints Episcopal Church and said he was dismayed after searching www.timesdispatch.com, the T-D online newspaper, not to find “a section dealing with the religious community.” He offered to help set up such a site.
Instead, he got help. On the T-D Web site directory, under the heading “Community,” he was told he could first click on “Access Virginia” and then on “Religion.” He could find information on churches, including All Saints Episcopal, listed there.
“Thank you,” he replied. “I just wish it was not so hidden.”
* * *
A complaint from Roland Winston found a story not “worth while to read.” He said “the news is missing” in an item about city police asking for help finding 16 suspects wanted on charges of drug dealing in the East End. The article contained no names, no addresses, nothing of value to help citizens recognize the suspects, he said.
The story was written from a Richmond Police Department news release that listed the 16 names but little else. Publishing those names without specific identification could have reflected on others in the Richmond area with the same names. One name on the list appeared 27 times in the Greater Richmond phone book.
Police spokeswoman Cynthia Price said police were prepared to release more information, including ages, addresses and even mug shots. Nobody called, she said.
The faxed news release was kept to one page, she said, because added fax pages too often were lost in newsrooms. In future news releases she plans to include an advisory to reporters to call for more information.
Odd. I thought that was standard operating procedure. “Check it out” was a familiar command from tough city editors.
* * *
If newspaper content, as father said, were “for the women folks alone,” some of them weren’t pleased with the presentation of way-out fashions pictured in a Flair section inSync feature Aug. 14.
Jacqueline Buchanan called it “an abomination . . . That was the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in a long day’s journey . . . The bondage trousers – that’s just too much for me.”
Another woman left a voice mail message: “I think the picture . . . of the two children who look like they can’t be more than 10 years old is very surprising, and I’m shocked that you would use it. . . . The boy is in an intimate position with his head up on her shoulder.”
The story and photos filled most of the section front and continued inside and enlightened readers on styles – yes, some bizarre – offered by several independent clothing retailers here.
The models appeared young, but they were college age, not 10 years old, said inSync reporter Kristin Coronado. The young man and woman pictured together (his head on her shoulder) are dating, Coronado said, and the store owner met them when they were models at a recent fashion show. The other model, Jessica Barnes, 23, is a retail store employee.
* * *
Like Rose with her grammar whistle in the comic strip “Rose Is Rose,” the grammar police are always on patrol. Nancy Williams left a phone message asking, “Have you all had lots of calls from English teachers about the headline on the article about the Poe Museum?”
The headline, on the Flair section front, read, “Was Poe Museum closing? Not hardly.”
Using “not” with “hardly” is incorrect, Williams said. The American Heritage Book of English Usage agrees with her and argues that “not hardly” is a double negative.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary is more tolerant. “Hardly,” it says, is sometimes used with “not” for emphasis. The form “is most commonly heard in Southern and Midland speech areas.”
I can’t hardly decide this one, but in Richmond I’ll lean toward Southern talk, you all.
