[Doodlin' Duke: the photo illustration; click image for bigger view]
Executive Editor Dennis Ryerson used his occasional column to apologize yesterday for a photo illustration of Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski that accompanied an Indianapolis Star story the day before about people who love (and hate) the school's team.
The artwork appeared in about 30,000 copies of the state edition before it was pulled early Friday morning after editors concluded it was inappropriate. The story ran as Indianapolis hosts the Final Four championships, where Duke is a contender. (Maddeningly in this Internet age, Ryerson doesn't link to the story.)
"The image was out of line,'' Ryerson says. "It ridiculed one of the best and most respected coaches in college basketball. Had we used the Blue Devil mascot, it may have been a different story, but using the coach's image was indefensible. It represented only one aspect of the story while ignoring the other -- the incredible success of Duke basketball."
Ryerson said he met with a "very gracious" Krzyzewski and others from the university Friday afternoon, and, "on behalf of the Star, apologized for the error. I also apologize to Duke, the team, Duke fans, and to our readers."
That's a whole lot of apologizing. But was it even necessary?
I've often thought that newspapers have grown overly sensitive, and less provocative, as they fear losing readers. In the process, the opposite happens: Customers flee as papers grow more bland. In the case of the Duke artwork, I wonder if the Star has created a headline-grabbing controversy that wouldn't have existed if the artwork had been allowed to stand.
Reader: 'Skeleton crews' to blame?
Among the 40-plus reader comments on Ryerson's column, a poster with the screen name Wordwarden wrote: "I'm guessing there's something to be said for the fact that newspapers in general now operate on skeleton crews because there's no money to go around. I have several friends in the biz. Less people there means less people are overseeing stuff before it gets in. Sadly, I think everyone's going to see more of this kind of stuff in the future, and not just from the Star. Basically, it comes down to you get what you pay for. I've said it before, at some point, you'll be forced to pay for online content or there will be no online content or newspaper content either because there will be no money to produce it."
Should the Star have killed the illustration? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Image: the sports cover, via The Herald Bulletin in Anderson, Ind.]
No. When did scribbling on a photo become indefensible? Newspapers aren't dead, but they are stiff.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI found a link to your blog via Ruth Holladay's blog. She's a former Indianaopolis Star reporter. She's been posting about the layoffs and the lack of editing at the Star. http://www.ruthholladay.com/2010/apr/02/damned-week-at-the-star-gets-worse/
Let's be clear: The Star is not a hard hitting paper pf high journalistic integrity. The reporting is bland and rarely takes a hard stance. Many of the gifted journalists have either left voluntarily or were fired, and the few that stayed publish a good piece once in a while between a number of thinly veiled press releases. A number of political blogs in this town (from both sides of the isle) as well as the Indianapolis Business Journal run circles around the Star. Some in the television media, particularly Fox 59's Russ McQuaid, are also doing a good job.
While your question is something worth discussing, The Star's piece is not one to use to start the discussion. If anything, the Star demonstrates exactly what not to do in this 24/7 news media.
Feel free to contact me further if you wish. An e-mail of mine is listed in my Blogger profile.
And yes, The Star should never have let that juvenile illustration run. It looks like something they took from a Facebook fan group, not something journalists created.
Doctoring a photo violates Gannett policy, period.
ReplyDeleteThanks Indy Student for approving the question as worth discussing.
ReplyDeleteGet back to class.
Jim, this is a major deal because when papers do items similar to this, the end result is usually vetted to make sure there's not common sense idiocy in the product.
ReplyDeleteThis shows that whoever let this slip by is either stupid or careless. As for the person who did the drawing, they just went a bit far with the thought. It's up to a manager to point out, "hey, maybe a bull's-eye is a few too many steps too far."
This is a good paper, but no matter if it's just one example, it's stunning this garbage hit the racks.
Even if it was all but the bull's-eye, it's still too much on the head coach. The example of using the mascot works well. It wouldn't have have worked as well for the cartoon since it already has the horns, etc., but a mascot is certainly fair game and shows the humor of it. Using the coach makes it look degrading and hides the fun intention.
As he's said he is, I'd be embarrassed to be the writer.
Doctoring a photo for a photo illustration, if clearly labeled as one, does not violate Gannett policy.
ReplyDeleteSince when did Gannett enforce any kind of policies or ethical guidelines?
ReplyDeleteNo, it did not warrant an apology -- It was clever and most readers would have loved it! Newspapers, even the Indy Star, need to show a sense of humor -- and what better occasion that the Final Four!
ReplyDeleteYeah, newspapers should show a sense of humor, but if you get in that game, don't be as stupid as the manager on this decision. Be smart with a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteThis was stupid.
A) It was a clever idea
ReplyDeleteB) Apologizing and handwringing is just plain stupid.
[] newspaper finally does something a little bit different and doesn't apologize to anyone.
ReplyDelete[x] newspaper continues to show how lame it is and why only old people read them by apologizing over and over again over a doodle.
I would say ...
ReplyDeleteA) It was not a bad idea, but it was poorly executed. The Bullseye and the crayon headline went a little too far.
B) There was really no need to apologize. I'm not sure what's indefensible about it. It was a poorly illustrated story, but it didn't call for violence against the coach and was not inaccurate. If poorly executed stories are indefensible, then most Gannett papers (including mine) should simply be shut down.
C)Ryerson -- and nobody else -- deserves all the heat on this. There was a day when the executive editor of a newspaper knew what his front page would look like before he left for the evening. It doesn't sound like he had any concept this was happening, and that's his fault -- not the people who blew the concept. Same thing happens at my paper. The editor is generally out the door by 5:30, leaving the decision-making to others. It's the Gannett way and, because of that, things like this will continue to happen.
D) All of that said, who cares? I have a hard time imagining readers will think this is a big deal and that's why newspapers are becoming pointless. If we get freaked out about something like this it's clear that we have no idea what most readers consider offensive, or important, no matter how many Gannett focus groups claim to know exactly what makes readers tick.
I know that when I was at the Star I used to raise holy heck about unlabeled photo illustrations (and prewriting, but that's another issue). At least this one was marked.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Jim: Newspapers have grown overly sensitive and less provocative, and the Star created a controversy by pulling the artwork rather than letting it quietly run.
ReplyDeleteIt absolutely did not warrant multiple apologies. The design perfectly illustrated the idea that Duke is the team people love to hate. But if the people in charge didn't like it, perhaps they could catch and correct such things earlier if they had adequate staffing in place.
What's "indefensible" is not sticking up for your staff or encouraging creativity.
Anon 04/05/2010 1:05,
ReplyDeleteAt least I don't hide behind anonymity. Not only that, but it wasn't even to make a point. It was just a personal attack. So congrats.
Anon 4/05/2010 1:23 AM, I'm in full agreenment. A mascot would've been a better choice. And exactly what I've been thinking. Was this even vetted? And if so, by who? If it wasn't, why wasn't it?
4/05/2010 10:04 AM, I disagree. Every local blog that's covered this issue so far thinks this illustration puts our city in a bad light. The NCAA certainly will think twice before letting us host another one of their events.
At my (non-Gannett) newspaper, publishing that doctored photograph -- bullseye and all -- would be grounds for immediate termination.
ReplyDeleteI would love to know how this happened. Who decided on that approach to illustrating the Duke story? And why wasn't the executive editor consulted about it before it ran? Someone's judgement -- or maybe several someones' -- was sorely lacking.
ReplyDelete10:34 -- I would argue that the executive editor shouldn't have "to be consulted." Back in the day the executive editor's job was to know what was going on with his/her paper. I worked with some great people who vetted front page concepts even on their days off. And if the executive editor wasn't available for some reason, there was a competent managing editor who could make the call. If Ryerson is bummed that this graphic got printed, he has nobody to blame but himself ... or his No. 2 in command.
ReplyDeleteGannett editors are not wired to take responsibility or do their jobs properly, though. Many of them, particularly at the mid-sized and larger publications, spend all their time in corporate meetings, playing cheerleader for this initiative or that. The editor at my daily doesn't seem to give a damn about the content of the paper, unless it's tied to some big corporate push. Then, you'd think his life depended on that push. If, say, corporate decides that Sundays are a big deal, he'll spend hours double and triple checking every Sunday story. Meanwhile the paper could be absolute crap Monday through Saturday and he won't bat an eye.
That's how you move up in Gannett. You worry only about what the person above you is concerned with, and our management has never been concerned with the big picture.
Just came across this.
ReplyDeleteWho was directly responsible for this? SE? ASE? Not the person who drew it or Ryerson. The actual person in charge of allowing this.
1:58 -- As executive editor, Ryerson is in charge of editorial content. The fact that he chose to be hands off does not mean he wasn't in charge.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really funny about this whole debate is that our future is supposedly online. And most Gannett papers run things that are far more juvenile than this online every week. Where's the outrage about that? The Star has long been a leader in running snapshots of people out drinking on its Web site. How is that defensible?
ReplyDelete>> 4/05/2010 10:04 AM, The NCAA certainly will think twice before letting us host another one of their events.
ReplyDeleteYou really have no idea what you're talking about.
And where was the AME of design on this one? Also out the door by 5 p.m.?