In her latest blog post, Mrs. Stark insists that the Globe was slower because it was important to make sure the reporter got accurate information. She then whined about how easy the television people have it.
Still, newspapers have the advantage in knowing how to take the court documents, the press releases and the interviews and then providing a story that that’s not spoon-fed at a press conference.
Now that is the height of arrogance. It appears to be a blanket indictment of television people as airheads who don't know their way around a courthouse. Only newspaper people, or perhaps only Joplin Globe reporters, to Mrs. Stark's way of thinking, have any knowledge of the secrets contained in those musty old folders at the county courthouse.
No one is going to argue the wisdom of getting your facts straight, but in this day and age, if you are going to be the number one news source in your market, you have an obligation to get the story on line quickly and accurately. When breaking news is occurring, readers are naturally going to go online and try to find out what is happening. If they go to the Joplin Globe too many times and see nothing has been reported, it makes more sense to find someone who is providing updates and stick with that website.
The Globe had an opportunity to provide a few facts quickly and then do the painstaking research noted in Mrs. Stark's post. It chose not to do so and was beaten to the punch by KOAM. It probably would have taken only a couple of minutes, if that, to update. Instead, we now have the same kind of thinking that is pushing newspapers closer and closer to their own destruction- the we know how to do it right. Everyone else is inferior line.
Jeff Lehr and Derek Spellman, as always, did a solid job of reporting on this case and continue to do so. It is a shame that their rabbit-eared editor couldn't have just praised their work and left it at that.
Mrs. Stark finished her post with this killer line:
Solid news reporting is not a race, but rather it’s the finish that we think matters the most.
Mrs. Stark, it's not an either-or situation. There is no reason why a newspaper cannot do both. If newspaper editors continue to deny the changes that have occurred on the media landscape, there will come a day when the only place you will find the Joplin Globe is in plastic bags in flea markets.
5 comments:
Web site. AP style.
Every time I read an "editorial" or blog post written by Carol Stark, I think about how much I miss Edgar Simpson. I'm sure he had faults and that there are valid criticisms of him, but at least he knew how to stir stuff up, keep elected officials and local law enforcement on their toes, dig deep for details, ask tough questions and ensure that he actually got the truth. She only writes fluff about fluff. The overall quality of most reporting has gone steadily and quickly downhill in recent years, too, and I realize that some of that is probably coming from the corporate office and policies of not pissing off advertisers. Still, when I read what passes for news articles in the Globe, it is often apparent that the reporter didn't even ask any follow-up questions or do any real investigating.
Stark's article today was about the Sheldon case--but it wasn't; actually, it was about how devastated the surviving family was in the wake of the tragedy. I don't mean to minimize their pain--I can only imagine how horrible it must be--but OF COURSE they're devastated! OF COURSE they're going to be devastated for quite some time! How is this news? The news in this case was the arrest of the suspects, but that was barely mentioned in her column today. In fact, almost everything Stark published in today's paper could have been written anytime after the murders happened.
Between worthless columns like this, slow breaking news (and few updates on breaking stories during the day), ridiculous blogs (half written by amateur writers, and that's being polite), and the letters to the editor that Stark decides to publish (despite the prevalence of racist, sexist, homophobic hate speech that can and does incite violence), the Globe isn't even good enough for lining my cat's litterbox. Given that the Globe's coverage area is so large and that the Joplin metro area includes something like 250,000, Stark is missing opportunities and failing to fill the role that a good, solid local newspaper ought to fill in our lives--and that's a shame.
(Sorry if this posts twice--you can delete this one--I got an error message and was not sure if it went through.)
I'll agree that the Globe grows worse at a logarithmic pace, but you cannot actually defend the collection of half-baked witticisms, idiotic rhetorical questions, and faux-buddy arm chucks - interspersed with an occasional incoherent factoid, that passes for local TV news?
Mr. Tuner, This is my first time reading your blog. I will now have to check back more often. I strongly disagree both in specifics and on broader terms with what your and your commenters have written.
First, which is more important a 1 minute sound bite or several articles and one column thus far on the Sheldon case? The Globe has addressed much greater substance and depth in the Sheldon case than any TV newscast could possibly do. And more is yet to come I can assure you.
Second, Carol's leadership at the Globe is remarkable in my view. Name one issue (other than abortion) of local, national or international importance that has not been addressed in both news articles and in many cases editorials. There is not an issue of significance that the Globe has not met head on. You may not agree with the positions taken editorially but taken they have been for sure.
Carol usually stays above the fray in print and lets editorials, guest columns and letters provide the opinions. That does not mean that she does not have strong opinions that are far from "fluff". She simply allows a wide variety of people to write them.
Ed Simpson was THE Globe for sure. Carol on the other hand provided the freedom for the Globe to reflect a much wider depth and breadth of opinion that it used to provide. The community is much better for it as a result.
Who has started to dig into the alleged killers' backgrounds to see what makes them tick?
Answer: Nobody, to my knowledge.
Archie Dunn now says the killings just something that happened when the two were surprised. But how are you surprised out in the middle of the sticks late at night when two people drive up in a car?
(Of course, that doesn't mean the two are innocent.)
That story bears no similarity to Dunn's earlier statements that the murder was horrific because, in all probability, there was a personal animosity component to the crime.
Why do two kids steal a a gun and sell it and kill two old people with a knife? There are scores of interesting angles to this case that can be explored before the trial.
Where's Max McCoy when you need him?
Post a Comment