it’s your times, but their words
Elijah Dukes and his family seem to have quite a hold on the St. Pete Times.
Back in May the Times chose not to offer the newspaper at Tropicana Field the day that Elijah Dukes was on the front page for threatenening his wife. The Times mumbled something about miscommunication, and the Times’ own Eric Deggans says the newspaper hasn’t really offered a valid explanation for the decision.
Now this month, on the same day that Sue Carlton begs the city of St. Pete to make sure they allow all viewpoints including divisive speech, her employer, the St. Pete Times deleted portions of another story on Dukes and cut off online comments.
To be sure, the newspaper is a private company, and they can do what they want. But it certainly seems like the St. Pete Times is developing a habit of suppressing speech, limiting information, and only letting you know what they want you to know. I’m certain that is not their intent. Or is it? I wanted to ask them directly.
So I sent an email to the online editor asking about the difference between the printed story and the online piece, and followed up a day later with email to him and several others over there at Times Central, but after nearly a week of no response, I would guess they don’t feel like they need to answer.
It’s this type of attitude that is hurting their industry. How on earth can the Times demand more answers from government when they fail to properly address questions of them? They promise accuracy, but not clarity.
Our standard of accuracy applies equally to our business operations…
We mean to be receptive and responsive to readers and customers.
We know all newspapers are still feeling their way along the information superhighway, but recent actions on and off the internet are undermining their credibility.
Several Times editors regularly read Sticks of Fire, and we encourage any of you to leave your comments here.
Tags: newspapers
Loading ...
June 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I would have thought accuracy and clarity would go hand in hand. What a bunch of hypocrites.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am
What is the problem with newspapers in this area? The Times with this nonsense and the Tribune, which looks like ad central. I suppose that is why more and more people get their news from the internet and other sources.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Just to play devil’s advocate a bit, part of staying competitive with the “information superhighway” is keeping info streamlined.
Personally, I really don’t care about subjective audience comments or the peripheral analysis of laymen. Sometimes, the full locus of what you communicate includes what you don’t communicate, and it doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
Additionally, I’ve never understood why so many expect free press to translate as transparent press. Message sent rarely equals message received. A series of writers will never have the same angle.
The truth isn’t always out there, you know?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
It’s almost as if the papers are going through a death spiral. Instead of embracing and enhancing the new media and building on their foundation these media outlets are cutting out the very things that set them apart from blogging. A loss of credibility and the staff cuts of true journalists has them settling down to the level of bloggers.(No offense intended to any blogger, but few of us are true professionals in the arena nor have the resources to individually replace a news source like a paper or television station) The more you look and act like something the easier it is to be replaced by that something. Too many free resources to pay for a paper thats not much more than a printed blog.