 |
|||
recently...
Telegraph Blogs
press play
Fashion Cents Unveiled After Hours Live Free or Dine Off Track The Mother of all Blogs Raising Athletes The Pop Diner The Editor's Blog Web Notes On Assignment Hot Flash Granite Geek Inside NH Preps calendar
Dude, What Were You Thinking?Nick | 20 April, 2007 15:00 | (986)
That's exactly what a few of our readers wanted to know after reading our story last Saturday under the headline: "Dude, where's your mom's car? / 13-year-old takes vehicle from home; joyride ends when Maxima hits utility pole." Here's the short version based on accounts from Nashua police:
End of story? Well, it would have been had we reported the story the way we traditionally report stories of this type. But we didn't. Andrew Wolfe, our longtime police and court reporter, thought he would try something different. Rather than write up what probably would have been no more than a brief item to run under our News Digest, he decided to report the story with a bit of an attitude. Hence the opening paragraph: NASHUA -- Dude, you are SO grounded! (If you haven't read the story yet, click here.) The first e-mail I received didn't arrive until a few days later, but the author didn't pull any punches. "Why would you allow an article like this to be written? This is a serious matter and a serious offense and your written actions seem to encourage this behavior for other kids to follow," he wrote. "If the kids in that car were not wearing seat belts and the car was not equipped with air bags this may not be such a funny story to write. Instead of making this to a lite matter it would have been wiser to write a more serious article to discourage other kids from trying something like this. Your article is in very poor taste and will only make these kids 'heroes' among their peers." While that was the only e-mail that I received -- I got a critical phone call, too -- Andrew got about a half-dozen sent directly to him. "Andrew, I have always enjoyed your reporting and writing, however, in this case, I strongly feel you crossed the line," this reader wrote. "This matter is not something to joke about. This kid was traveling at highway speeds in a densely populated neighborhood with children. True, this happened at night when most were sleeping, but how about if this happened midday? What if one of my neighbors had been on a late night walk? I don't believe you would have written a satirical article if someone had gotten hurt." Andrew also heard from a city school administrator, who was upset with the use of words like "Dude," "cool," "buds" and others that he felt suggested a "glamorous undertaking by the driver and his companions." "In closing, I was disappointed when I first read the story in the paper, but I am now even more upset after I have heard some of our students joking about the incident," he said. "I believe that this type of reporting of a situation as dangerous as this one was not in the best interest of these boys or anyone else in the Nashua community." The story even drew the attention of a journalist at the St. Petersburg Times in Florida. He posted it on his Web site, Gangrey.com, which sparked an equally spirited discussion among journalists that ranged from "totally dug it" to "lame." OK, let me address the easy question first: No, Andrew would not have written -- nor would we have published -- this kind of story if someone had actually gotten hurt. Period. Nor was it our intent to either glamorize or trivialize what most reasonable people would agree was a serious situation. As the father of two now-grown daughters, I can assure you I wouldn't have found this even mildly amusing had either of them pulled a similar stunt when they were that age. At the risk of oversimplifying, then, the question seems to boil down to this: Is it possible to report this story in a more entertaining way without appearing to condone or glamorize the actions of the parties involved? Andrew thought he could; obviously, a number of you disagree. Before closing with my own thoughts, there's something I want to be absolutely clear about: Andrew didn't do anything wrong here. After choosing an alternative approach to his story, he immediately brought it to the attention of his supervisor in case it was decided he should rework the story in a more traditional format. His supervisor then made it a point to bring it to my attention, knowing full well there was a pretty good chance I would say: "Nicely done, Andrew. Now give me something I can actually put in the paper." And, to be honest, that pretty much sums up my initial reaction to the story. After three decades in this business -- virtually all of them in some kind of supervisory capacity -- it's pretty hard to resist the knee-jerk reaction of just saying no to anything that challenges the way we've always done things. Not only is it safe, it's easy. But that's precisely the problem: It's too easy. Whether we may like it or not, Andrew and I are working in a rapidly changing industry where we are being asked to innovate, re-examine the way we've always done things, then innovate some more. That's not just true here; that's pretty much everywhere. And as many of you are aware, there's a lot of that taking place here at The Telegraph, which became particularly evident with this week's flood coverage. More and more multimedia offerings, especially video. A nearly up-to-the-minute breaking news blog. Breaking news alerts direct to your cell phone. The introduction three weeks ago of our weekly video newscast, tcast. So, in retrospect, maybe that's why I didn't send the story back for a rewrite. Maybe it was an opportunity for me to practice what I preach. Maybe, just maybe, it was time for me to step outside my comfort zone. In this case, that doesn't mean it was a good journalistic decision. Many of you who were prompted to respond by the publication of that article made compelling points. Perhaps I would have felt differently if we had engaged in that conversation prior to publication. But that's not the way it works in this fish-bowl of a business, where every decision -- good or bad -- is out there for everyone to see. I can't promise this will be the last time we do something that will leave you scratching your collective heads, but I can promise to at least try to explain why we did what we did when you bring it to our attention. You all deserve at least that much from your local newspaper.
I personally did not find the article to be offensive--the word "juvenile" comes to mind. I must admit I would not have bothered to finish the article if I were not reading it in response to your suggestion to do so. The thing is--it was obvious after a few paragraphs that the "article" was not in fact going to give me much information, and what information was coming could have been expressed much more directly and briefly. This is not to say that I think Mr. Wolfe was wrong--simply that it is not my thing. I guess I prefer the traditional approach In my former life as a technical writer, I happened to come across a fellow writer who was using much the same approach for a computer manual. In that case, the big boss, who felt much as you did, called for a group meeting to find out how the other writers felt about this. Most of us were noncommittal, because we did nto want to discourage our peer or come across as a wet blanket ... but I recall that the manual never got published, even though the fellow worked on it for several months. (I don't think that is why the company later wnet bankrupt.) On the other hand, I certainly do not agree with the critics you reference. I don't think this approach condoned the activity ... and I do not believe the kids involved or their parents should be spared any embarassment. Mr. Wolfe's article was written directly to the young culprit; that would be good, if he were old/mnature enough to comprehend the sarcasm ... but what about the rest of us, who did nto do these terrible things and therefore do not wish to be spoken to in that way? Posted by: Brad Seabury | April 20, 2007, 21:52
As one who reads 2-3 newspapers a day, it can become a little too easy to just breeze through the articles, perusing the first and second paragraphs, then moving on. However, an article such as this one was enough to make me stop my scanning approach, at least for a minute. Mr. Wolfe was not trying to trivialize the situation, and quite honestly, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Of course if the incident had ended with injury or worse, the article would have been written more of a standard "News In the Region" - type of reporting. However (thankfully), that was not how this situation concluded. I asked my 17-year-old daughter what she thought of the article when it was printed, and she thought that, had she been the culprit, she would have been mortified and humiliated to see her actions printed in this way, not encouraged to do it again, and certainly not an egg-on to her peers to try the same thing. There is nothing wrong with trying to make reading the paper more entertaining, and as my daughter says, this article had more of a deterrent effect than encouragement. I hope to see more of the same in the future. Posted by: Dave Burgess | April 21, 2007, 00:24
I agree with Dave Burgess. I use the Telegraph 3 days a week in my 8th grade Language Arts class, and Andrew's article sparked a wonderful conversation in our classroom. Andrew has come in to speak to my students, and they know him as a professional who takes his work seriously, so to read an article like that from him was a fascinating lesson on how journalism can have different "voices" even when reporting facts. They had a similar reaction to Mr. Burgess' daughter -- they would be mortified if their escapades had been detailed in that way. Keep up the great work, Andrew. My students continue to look for your byline each week. Posted by: Liz McGivern | April 21, 2007, 03:56
I read that piece and probably would not have read it if it were reported traditionally. That is the point, right? Make it enticing so that readers will read it. The Telegraph wins lots or rewards because (I think) it is innovative and creative toward its every more competitive business. You can revert to "tradition" and die a death of a million clicks or you can be edgy and live. Being edgy has its risks. Stay on the edge. Posted by: John Bachman | April 21, 2007, 06:03
I agree with those who were critical of Wolfe's approach to the story. The "attitude" was inappropriate for an incident that could have resulted in death and injury. The good news is that at least two pairs of eyes vetted the article. The bad news is that those eyes didn't see that the "clever" approach misjudged the serious nature of the incident. Finally, please, I beg all "Telegraph" writers to never, never, try to write in the style of a young teenager's argot. It's hackeyed and already stale by the time the story is published. Posted by: Kirby F. Smith | April 21, 2007, 13:06
I realize the incident could have had a bad outcome but it did not. I would have shown it to my stpchildren because I think it would get the message across in a way they would understand. With so many sad events happening in this world we should not overreact to Mr. Wolfe's attempt at humor. Personally I found it amusing . Posted by: P. Bannan | April 21, 2007, 15:56
I didn't have a problem with the story at the time. I figured it was a juvenile approach that fell flat, but that it slipped through because it seemed funny at the time.
I want to thank all of you for taking the time to respond to this blog entry. You all raised some excellent points -- regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with our decision to publish this story in this fashion. Posted by: Nick | April 27, 2007, 22:55
I had to comment after reading the first several "What if these kids had hit a tree and burst into flames and become disemboweled" comments. The truth is, they didn't. I'm sure that's why Nick decided a lighter touch was OK. How many people would have noticed -- much less read -- this item had it been written as the usual "A 13-year-old boy was uninjured blah blah blah" item? Not many. I was also amused at the reader(s) who were aghast -- AGHAST! -- that the newspaper dare put anything "entertaining" in the paper. What is a newspaper supposed to be BUT entertaining? I want my news, but I want it presented in a way that captivates me. This story did that. The Telegraph should be commended for trying something new. Tom Auclair
I missed this article and I'm bummed out about it! I read the Telegraph everyday and have since I was 11 years old and feel like I missed out. As the parent of a teenager, I find that the best approach to talking sense into him is to speak to him in his language. Kids do all kinds of stupid things and they need to be called on it. Of course the worst did not happen and if it had, this type of article would never have been written. I applaud the unconventional approach and encourage more! Let's do that with the woman who slept while her child went missing and ended up eating tons of our tax dollars while searching for the kid at her neighbor's house. Kudos to Andrew Wolfew and The Telegraph. Dude! What about mine? Sweet! What does mine say??? Posted by: Jackie | May 05, 2007, 21:45
What an odd question from a Telegraph reader. I’d expect it from a reader of The Onion! A local newspaper is supposed to be a lot of things all at the same time. Some things are definitely not entertaining (think high-tide times, school board policies, degree days and stock market results) but they ought always to be relevant. A paper that puts entertainment first would be as useful to me a source for local news as WMUR-TV. But that’s just my opinion. Ultimately the Telegraph’s editors, advertisers and readers will decide. Posted by: A. Wiltonian | May 07, 2007, 19:22Add commentsearcharchives
May 2008 Categories
General [65]
Syndicate
Technorati
NH Blogs
| |||
The Dude thing 
