Was there any reason to write and publish this?

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/12/peter_bhatia_clackamas_shootin.html#incart_river

First paragraph: When the first reports from Twitter and police radios broke on Dec. 11, reporters and photographers from The Oregonian raced to Clackamas Town Center. Our first reporter on the scene was Steve Mayes, who works in our Clackamas County bureau in Oregon City. His colleague, Rick Bella (whose Twitter handle is "@southnewshound"), was already working the phones from the bureau. Most of The Oregonian's editors were in our daily 3:30 p.m. Page One meeting, in our downtown offices. Other reporters and photographers hustled south from the downtown office and from other assignments.

Last paragraph: The coverage of the Clackamas shootings reminds me how fortunate I am to be associated with such fine journalists. But I hope you can tell they are even better people.

Between those two are some interesting points, but should this even have been published? One of the comments: Nobody disagrees with you because nobody cares. When the press writes stories about themselves, I just roll my eyes and think "what a bunch of d-bags".

Was it necessary to publish this to address all of the questions about accuracy and sensitivity, or should it have been left alone?

 

There is no newspaper in the country, and that includes the New York Times, that likes to navel-gaze and masturbate more than the Oregonian. Meanwhile they get slapped around on every story of significance up there, such as the time they gave the former governor a chance to meet with them and label as an "affair" his repeated rape of a teenage girl.

 

It was not necessary to allow the word "d-bags" through on a comment.

 

I wanted so badly to work for the Oregonian once. I would have worked there for free if they'd have had me as an intern or a 22-year-old coming out of college. They could not have given less of a shit about me. I was really crushed. Thought it suggested something larger about my talents, or lack of.

That did not turn out to be true.

And yes, everything Vers writes is 100 percent accurate.

Remember when the beloved editorial page editor died sleeping with a prostitute and an editor purposely put false information in the paper in an effort to protect his rep? That, to me, said a lot about the paper in general.

 

It was LongTimeListener, but I'm keeping this quote.

 

Poynter always publishes the Editor's Notes tick-tocks on how they covered a big story. It's the journalistic equivalent of an Academy Awards speech where people thank their attorneys and agents, the director etc. Also might help the editor claim a byline for any awards that come the paper's way for their coverage.

 

I think this editor's deconstruction of this specific huge story is justifiable: "Here's how and what we did. Some of our veteran staff members worked hard and with sensitivity. Our efforts were validated by tremendous web traffic.* All that said, we wish we didn't have to report on these types of topics."

But as part of the larger trend of Engagement with Readers, this type of deconstruction in general makes me vomit.

* -- Worth mentioning. How many people, for example, turned to the Hartford Courant for coverage of the Newtown shootings?

 

My former place has a blog that does this type of navel gazing once per week. No shit.

 

Totally agree on the whole nonsense of "reader engagement" and the like. It's the start of a dangerous path that leads to the worst thing in the history of the free press, the notion of citizen journalism.

 

I'd love to see an annotated version which would include information like normally there would have been twice the number of reporters in a bureau before cutbacks, coordination with design desk in another time zone, reconfiguring the phones so customers calling the paper with info won't be routed to India, and the sending of a team two hours east to another paper to supervise the printing, which is no longer done on-site.

I'd like to see the Editor's Note on the blank Dec. 21 front page. "Readers. It was the publisher's idea. Sorry."
I'd like to see the Editor's Note on budget cuts. "We received word from corporate that we had to eliminate a reporter in the mid-salary range. I identified two reporters who weren't on my good side and in the spirit of the season - figured I would let them decide who stayed and who went, Hunger Games style. "