Clicking on the N&O
My print-free experiment with The News & Observer is clicking along well. Still, like any loyal reader, I’ve got some bones to pick.
First the good news. Even though I don’t get the paper in my driveway anymore, I still read it most mornings. I click on the website’s E-edition, then flip through the pages just like I used to. The downside: Since I’m usually eating breakfast, my iPad is covered with food stains.
Another thing going for them: They published one of my blogs on the opinion page (“Why Democrats shouldn’t try to out-Trump Trump”).
But not all is perfect. One day last week the number-one “Trending Story” was about a storm along the North Carolina coast that could become a hurricane. Since I was at OBX, I clicked on the story. Only to find it was two weeks old, from July 8. How could a “Trending Story” be two weeks old? Apparently, because a lot of people did what I did, click on a clickbait headline.
Does the N&O count clicks on outdated stories when it sells ads?
Next, I’m not sure what to think about The Influencer Series. It boasts, “We want to hear from you. What issues are most important to you this election year?” Many of the stories consist of Very Important People pontificating on Very Important Topics. Call me a cynic; I call it more clickbait. But I guess that’s what journalism today has become.
Last, and more serious, I do know what to think about the N&O’s decision to, as the editor put it, “part ways” with Anne Blythe. I don’t know Blythe well, but I’ve read her stories for years. She has struck me as a consummate professional and a superb reporter on stories involving courts, trials and legal issues.
The editor wrote, “We…examined more than 600 stories published since January 2016 (by Blythe). We found at least a dozen that contained phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs, lifted from other publications.”
A dozen out of 600? Containing “phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs” (like what?) “lifted from other publications” (like which?).
Insiders say Blythe wasn’t given a chance to explain or defend herself. Was that fair to a 30-year employee? Certainly, the N&O would demand more answers if the Governor, or Trump, fired somebody that way.
As an N&O alum, I care about how the paper treats its people. This decision strikes me as an unfair and unjust overreaction.
We all know the newspaper faces a challenge in today’s media marketplace and “fake news” climate. Long-time readers and fans, like me, are pulling for it. But we’re puzzled – and sometimes troubled – by some things we see. Online and in print.
Clicking on the N&O
My print-free experiment with The News & Observer is clicking along well. Still, like any loyal reader, I’ve got some bones to pick.
First the good news. Even though I don’t get the paper in my driveway anymore, I still read it most mornings. I click on the website’s E-edition, then flip through the pages just like I used to. The downside: Since I’m usually eating breakfast, my iPad is covered with food stains.
Another thing going for them: They published one of my blogs on the opinion page (“Why Democrats shouldn’t try to out-Trump Trump”).
But not all is perfect. One day last week the number-one “Trending Story” was about a storm along the North Carolina coast that could become a hurricane. Since I was at OBX, I clicked on the story. Only to find it was two weeks old, from July 8. How could a “Trending Story” be two weeks old? Apparently, because a lot of people did what I did, click on a clickbait headline.
Does the N&O count clicks on outdated stories when it sells ads?
Next, I’m not sure what to think about The Influencer Series. It boasts, “We want to hear from you. What issues are most important to you this election year?” Many of the stories consist of Very Important People pontificating on Very Important Topics. Call me a cynic; I call it more clickbait. But I guess that’s what journalism today has become.
Last, and more serious, I do know what to think about the N&O’s decision to, as the editor put it, “part ways” with Anne Blythe. I don’t know Blythe well, but I’ve read her stories for years. She has struck me as a consummate professional and a superb reporter on stories involving courts, trials and legal issues.
The editor wrote, “We…examined more than 600 stories published since January 2016 (by Blythe). We found at least a dozen that contained phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs, lifted from other publications.”
A dozen out of 600? Containing “phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs” (like what?) “lifted from other publications” (like which?).
Insiders say Blythe wasn’t given a chance to explain or defend herself. Was that fair to a 30-year employee? Certainly, the N&O would demand more answers if the Governor, or Trump, fired somebody that way.
As an N&O alum, I care about how the paper treats its people. This decision strikes me as an unfair and unjust overreaction.
We all know the newspaper faces a challenge in today’s media marketplace and “fake news” climate. Long-time readers and fans, like me, are pulling for it. But we’re puzzled – and sometimes troubled – by some things we see. Online and in print.