Behind the Headlines

At a time when the newspaper industry is under fire on all fronts, nothing is more uplifting than talking with college journalism students who are banking their futures on the survival of the business. Last week, I had the pleasure of speaking to a convention of the Kentucky Intercollegiate Press Association. I walked into the hotel lobby and found a group of determined young reporters assigned to interview me and write a story on deadline. They carried reporters’ spiral notebooks and frantically scribbled my every word. They were so full of energy and innocence that it took me back to 1974, when I started my first job as a daily newspaper reporter. I thought then that newspapers could save the world with a passionate pursuit of the truth, and I have pretty much clung to that notion over three decades in the business.

It was heartening to think that I may now pass along my convictions to another generation of journalists, just starting out in a time of cataclysmic change in our profession. Some wonder if newspapers will even survive another 10 years, if the print-and-ink model of news dissemination will be supplanted by the Web. Instead of thinking of ourselves as “reporters” or “editors,” we are urged to redefine ourselves as “content producers” who churn out facts that can be handily delivered by any number of niche products and new technologies. The futurists in our industry tell us to be “platform agnostic” — as thrilled by the publication of our work on a blog as we are to see it in black-and-white.

College journalists do not have to be reprogrammed. They are comfortable with a future in which their best work flows not necessarily from the pages of a newspaper, but from the glowing screen of a computer or a hand-held Blackberry.    

The encouraging part for those of us who’ve given our lives to this business is that college journalists approach their futures with the same boundless optimism that lured so many of us into the business. It was obvious from the looks in their eyes that they, too, believe that journalism and their contributions to it can change the world.

Marilyn Thompson
Editor

Ms. Thompson,

I applaud your efforts to confront and be confronted by readers one on one. I find it amusing that it takes three writers (albeit good ones) to carry the news of Kentucky’s defeat at the hands of Tennessee, while there is far less proportionate staff covering something far more critical, that being the General Assembly.

Tuesday’s story, "Funeral protest bills are passed" was an example of the paper turning to the wire service for assignments in its own back yard. I also think the paper fouled its own nest with the "ambush" photo of Rajon Rondo in its recent coverage of that stew. That the paper would print that photo without a credit (staff or no staff) indicated that someone wasn’t quite ready to own up to that effort.

Thank you.

Tom Carter in Berea

Mr. Carter brings up two interesting questions: Why does the Herald-Leader devote proportionately more reporters to coverage of UK sports than it does to coverage of the General Assembly, sometimes forcing us to rely on wire services for stories in our own backyard. The answer is simple, (although I have to admit that I have been a little confounded by it since arriving in Kentucky almost two years ago). UK sports coverage is one of this newspaper’s strongest selling points. Thus, the dedication of staff resources to UK sports coverage has remained strong despite cutbacks in other areas. He is correct that we should not have to rely on wire services for coverage of important legislative issues. Just this morning, our editors lamented that we did not have a staff-written story on coal legislation and had to rely instead on coverage from the Associated Press. We are always struggling to find ways to deploy our staff more effectively. We have not found the answer yet.

Meanwhile, he also brings up the controversial photo of Rajon Rondo exiting a car owned by Derek Anderson that ran recently on our sports front. This photo has generated many complaints against us for using "tabloid" journalism tactics in snapping a photo of Rondo in the parking lot outside Wildcat Lodge.

The photographer chose not to use his name on the photo, and I agree with some readers that this was a mistake. The photographer should have been identified, but I know the circumstances behind this decision. The photographer was concerned that the UK Athletics Department might be so infuriated by the photo that it would deny him access.

My position is that the Rondo photo was made outside a public parking lot at a publicly-funded university. It did not involve sneaking onto private property. And the photo our editors ran in the newspaper was selected from among a number of shots, some of them showing Rondo appearing to duck or hide under a hooded sweatshirt. We felt those photos implied that something was wrong, when in fact — as the story clearly stated — the use of Anderson’s vehicle had been approved by the NCAA.

Marilyn Thompson