Saturday, October 16, 2004

Postcard from a SwiftNews tourist

To get a better feeling for what is and is not common practice (and by extension, whether website features that minimize the appearance of opposition were likely to have been implemented deliberately), I went looking at other SwiftNews newspaper websites; most of them seem to use a similar, though not identical, website template as The Union's.

Special virtual award to the Greeley Tribune's site, for three reasons:
  1. They show they care about their site users: rather than silently provide incomplete information, they've posted this message on their Archives page:
    MAINTENANCE NOTICE: You may may have difficulty finding articles when searching by keyword. While we work to resolve this issue, try searching by date or for a word or words that appeared in the headline. We apologize for the inconvenience.
    The Tribune Technical Staff
  2. Their editor has a weblog, Virtual Greality, in which he does the usual "editor's column" stuff, but in addition,
  3. he provides his readers with "the civic gestures we call links" relating to the topic at hand, even to 'outside' sites like other newspapers (e.g. in this post).

    No comments section, but if his community is anything like ours that's exceedingly wise.

Another SwiftNews paper, the News-Review in Oregon, has a group weblog - which might end up working better, since it shares the work[for no pay]load among several people. They used it to warn their readers as early as Oct 11 that their website was having problems.

With respect to treatment of aging letters to the editor, I only checked out the Greeley Tribune. It is simultaneously less informative, more consistent, and less misleading than The Union - in that:
  • Unlike The Union, when you use "Search for a specific date", none of their letters to the editor show up in it.
  • on the other hand, unlike The Union, none of their letters show up in it - there isn't (as there is with The Union) a group of "second-class-citizen" letters that's hidden, while the presence of other letters leads you to think that you're not missing anything.


So, what does this tell us about nefarious motives of 'chortling cigar smoking back-newsroom cronies' (lurid fictional imagery) in Grass Valley?

Answer: It tells us that there's enough variation in handling of letters that the selective-slide-into-invisibility of letters critical of The Union's coverage is not likely to have been deliberate. But I can't help but think that, were the Greeley Tribune faced with a similar situation, then - just as they took the extra step to inform their readers about the Search problem - they would likewise make an effort to report the community response in less evanescent* manner. They seem to "regard the reader as a master to be served"**.

-------------

* Wrong word. Request: if you run across a better one, send it my way.
** John Carroll quote

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.