What Am I Doing?

Over lunch yesterday, I talked with one of the K-12 girls about this redaction business.

(School officials "redacted" some information posted on the district website, except whoops, it was electronically done, so it didn't actually work, the information was visable. Not that the information was particularly sensitive — I would call it inconsequential)

Cue the crisis telephone calls and panicked administrator emails. Over on the Tribune's blog, commenters are fuming. I have to file a Sunshine Law request for school district budgets over 10 years old.

This is ridiculous. There is a group of about 25 people in a shouting match and Columbia newspapers seem to be facilitating it. We don't even have to publish an article anymore; a phone call, information request, or rumor of what information we may or may not have is enough.

But of course there is little to nothing that is actually scandal-worthy.

"They think they have these skeletons, but there's not even a closet," is how the other reporter put it.

I think there are questionable things that the district is doing that decision-makers should be held responsible for, but that there is also a lot of mountain-making of molehills.

And now there are these blogs.

The one at the Tribune's been getting more opinionated. Snarky, even. And the reporter is definitely catering to the commenters. I would say that we've kept the tone of the SchoolHouseBlog more... careful/detailed/safe/thoughtful. As a result, comments are nonexistent.

So should we take a page from our competitor's book?

No. No. No. No. No.

Though I have been tempted. The temptation to be petty and vindictive is always there. But it's just that — pettyness. And, as funny as it sounds, "the blog is forever," as the other reporter said. What we write there is just as much a reflection of us and our newspaper as what we put into print.

I think that our obligation to the truth applies to more than just the facts. It also applies to the tone of our coverage in print and everywhere else. Sensationalism of an issue, even if the administrators are playing Pretend Big Brother, is inaccurate. How does that serve the reader? I think that for reporters to point to administrator paranoia constantly is like mentioning that Arch Brooks stole a turkey every time his name comes up.

Yes, it happened. Yes, it's strange, but repeating it gives it more weight than it deserves.

If we want to give this administrator paranoia the thought it deserves, we need to write an article to put these actions into context for the reader.

There was a survey. People answered it honestly. Some of them think that there are certain employees and technology that the district doesn't need. End story.

Progress report:
Met with Reuben and Joy to talk about this upcoming Saturday story about the school levy. My discussion with Reuben totally obliterated my print blinders.
"Figure out what information you have, and then how best how to show that to the reader."
I don't know, for some reason that sentence just made everything click for me. I spent some time drawing out what the Saturday story could look like, and I ended up with a very non-narrative way design.
I'm really excited about all of this. By using visuals, I can take all this information I have and lay it out for the reader, so he can get quickly to exactly what he needs, without wading through 30 inches of text first.

I'm also feeling overwhelmed. All of these things are happening so fast, and I can see all these different ways of looking at this issue, but there just isn't time for me to write 25 inches on each micro issue.

I don't think things are any different; I'm pretty sure this is just what happens when you get a better understanding of the news you're covering