It started out just like any other week. In fact, I remember eating lunch on Monday thinking that it was a slow news day up to that point.
Then it happened.
Word spread early in the afternoon that the New York Times was reporting Gov. Eliot Spitzer had told staffers he had been caught up in a prostitution ring. As unbelievable as it seemed, we all knew we were in for a big day and big week.
And that's how stories like this happen. I'm talking about the stories that take on a life of their own, that dominate the front-page headlines for days and that stay with us for the rest of our lives. I've seen a few of them in my career - the Bill Clinton scandal and the Sept. 11 attacks come to mind immediately.
These stories all present major challenges to the news media, who are racing to get the latest developments first but also making sure what they report is accurate.
Our goal in presenting this story was to keep readers informed on all the latest developments in Albany and New York City (where Spitzer was stationed), and to incorporate local reaction and impact into that coverage. We, of course, relied heavily on wire services, particularly the Associated Press, and the content they produced did not disappoint.
A new wrinkle with the Spitzer story was the prominence of media Web sites in distributing the news.
Every newspaper and TV news Web site that I visited this week, including ours at www.auburnpub.com, was posting updates to the story throughout the day just about every day of the week.
Like the Bill Clinton scandal and even the Sept. 11 attacks in an indirect way, one of the most difficult judgment calls to make was where to draw the line in terms of content that some might deem offensive. Everyone remembers the sordid details that came out about specific acts Clinton had committed, and we all remember how frequently the most disturbing images from the Sept. 11 attacks seemed to be popping up on our TV screens and newspaper pages.
The Spitzer scandal presented its own range of potentially offensive content. There was one detail about Spitzer that I came across in a wire story that I deleted because I thought it was too salacious and would offend news readers, but others in my position could have and did come to different conclusions.
In the end, the whole story really affirms how subjective our job can be at times.
The only way we can know if we're making sound decisions is to hear from readers.
So I put it out there. How did we do with the Spitzer story, and how did the news media in general do?
Let me know so we can do better the next time.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's columns appear Saturdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
Word spread early in the afternoon that the New York Times was reporting Gov. Eliot Spitzer had told staffers he had been caught up in a prostitution ring. As unbelievable as it seemed, we all knew we were in for a big day and big week.
And that's how stories like this happen. I'm talking about the stories that take on a life of their own, that dominate the front-page headlines for days and that stay with us for the rest of our lives. I've seen a few of them in my career - the Bill Clinton scandal and the Sept. 11 attacks come to mind immediately.
These stories all present major challenges to the news media, who are racing to get the latest developments first but also making sure what they report is accurate.
Our goal in presenting this story was to keep readers informed on all the latest developments in Albany and New York City (where Spitzer was stationed), and to incorporate local reaction and impact into that coverage. We, of course, relied heavily on wire services, particularly the Associated Press, and the content they produced did not disappoint.
A new wrinkle with the Spitzer story was the prominence of media Web sites in distributing the news.
Every newspaper and TV news Web site that I visited this week, including ours at www.auburnpub.com, was posting updates to the story throughout the day just about every day of the week.
Like the Bill Clinton scandal and even the Sept. 11 attacks in an indirect way, one of the most difficult judgment calls to make was where to draw the line in terms of content that some might deem offensive. Everyone remembers the sordid details that came out about specific acts Clinton had committed, and we all remember how frequently the most disturbing images from the Sept. 11 attacks seemed to be popping up on our TV screens and newspaper pages.
The Spitzer scandal presented its own range of potentially offensive content. There was one detail about Spitzer that I came across in a wire story that I deleted because I thought it was too salacious and would offend news readers, but others in my position could have and did come to different conclusions.
In the end, the whole story really affirms how subjective our job can be at times.
The only way we can know if we're making sound decisions is to hear from readers.
So I put it out there. How did we do with the Spitzer story, and how did the news media in general do?
Let me know so we can do better the next time.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's columns appear Saturdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.