Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Readers differ with News-Leader publisher's assessment of his newspaper

Readers were not buying the idea being pushed by Springfield News-Leader Publisher Tom Bookstaver in a column in Sunday's edition.

Bookstaver spent a considerable amount of time telling readers how healthy his newspaper is, but his readers have noticed some of the changes the News-Leader made and called him out on those in the comment section of the column. Included were these responses:

Mr. Bookstaver:

We don't want "more innovations, more new products".

We want a vital community newspaper that will actually take risks and provide thorough investigative reporting.

We want an opinion page columnist who is on the payroll. It is clear that the NL regularly exploits "volunteers", many of them crackpots in lieu of actual journalists, who want to see their name and photo in print, to fill the Voices page. Then you try to make them seem more "official" by selecting the Stormys and the Joeys to the Community Advisory Board.

Corporate greed has sucked the NL down to where it is today. Maybe when the economy strengthens a not-for-profit or at least a locally owned news publication will blossom to offer some real competition.



Mr. Bookstaver, we don't want your "growing family of products". We want a solid NEWSpaper with a professional staff that includes experienced editors and reporters, enough of them to thoroughly cover the important news of each day plus others to dig up news that the "powers that be" don't want everyone to know.

All this other stuff you boast of is just smoke and mirrors.


When news companies are more interested in packaging and products than in covering the news, they pave the way for their own downfall. While the News-Leader still provides strong coverage in many areas, notably Chad Livengood's political coverage, Gannett continues to show a complete disregard for its readers in Springfield and other communities across the U. S.

And again, as I noted earlier, if the News-Leader is in as good a shape as Bookstaver says, why did it need to give its employees two weeks of unpaid furloughs, something that was not even mentioned in the column?

No comments: