[Image: Newseum]
Thursday, June 03, 2010
USAT | Graphic puts oil pipe in surprising context
Today's front page offers what USA Today does best: a graphic reveals how a relatively small pipe -- shown actual size -- has caused such a huge problem. (Bigger page view; related coverage.)
Got a Gannett front page to recommend? Find it in the Newseum's page one database, then post a link 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: Newseum]
[Image: Newseum]
12 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is about the size of the hole that Martore has drillind into Hunke's ass since he took over from Moon.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, Martore did not want another Craig Moon, so she brought in Hunke to be her whipping boy. The decisions being made here really does compromise journalistic integrity. Hilkirk is worried and speaks of this often in our editorial review sessions.
There have been many occasions where we have forgone stories because corporate does not like the story and what it might do to advertising dollars. Hunke just listens and agrees.
I'm no fan of many things here but this...
ReplyDeleteThere have been many occasions where we have forgone stories because corporate does not like the story and what it might do to advertising dollars. Hunke just listens and agrees.
... is a total and complete lie.
There are no cases of corporate telling USA Today NOT to do a story. There would be a revolt in the newroom. It's this kind of 'crowd sourcing' that is just posted for the perverse fun and mischief of it.
USA Today has many problems. Corporate directing news coverage is not one of them. What crap.
11:55 am: I also doubt Corporate would direct coverage in such a micro fashion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, @7:49 am did not say Corporate had "told" USA Today anything. As you correctly note, the poster says only that USAT had "forgone" stories because Corporate feared the advertising consequences.
Newsrooms can and do shy away from sensitive stories for that very reason -- without being told directly to do so. It all comes down to whether a newsroom is encouraged to be independent of its employer's financial interests.
Jim, I know as a blogmeister you have to find the best in all your participants, but to give the original poster's comments ANY validity is really uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteSure, there's an interesting discussion to be had about news organizations of all stripes shying away or ignoring stories because of some corporate tag-cloud of no-nos.
But to give 7:49 any credibility is just wrong. Many of the people reading this blog have been at numerous meetings with John Hillkirk, and he has never "complained" about corporate interference, overt or covert.
Just a lie of a post intended to cause more trouble than we already have.
Let me add to the chorus. If 7:49 has ever been in a meeting in which John Hillkirk made any statement that can be construed as definitive, it was in an alternate universe. And in more than a decade at TNN, I have never seen any story idea spiked because of direct or indirect corporate pressure.
ReplyDeleteThreads like this are always tricky to navigate. I'm weighing one anonymous poster's comment against another anonymous poster's. How, then, do I judge credibility, when I don't know either one's identity?
ReplyDeleteHovering in the background is personal experience: At Gannett's paper in Little Rock, I was ordered to not publish stories about one major potential advertiser, and another existing advertiser -- for fear that we'd lose their business.
Did that order come down directly from Corporate? Doubtful. But it didn't have to; one of the managers who relayed that demand had been sent in by Corporate to keep an eye on the newsroom.
Again, Jim ignores the obvious falsity of a posting and tries to make it a legitimate discussion. Start a new thread if that is what you want to do. But I agree with those above. Sometimes a crap post is just that ---- a crap post.
ReplyDeleteThat's an awesome front page!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI concur with an earlier comment. USAT "has many problems." Almost all were self inflicted and involved personnel decisions in the newsroom over the last few years. This front page is nice, but I am not convinced it's accurate. Like BP, USAT has lost a lot of journalistic credibility and cut a lot of corners.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete7:49a is not far off. When Hunke was in Detroit he had a meeting with the Governor of Michigan as she pleaded to the Detroit Free Press NOT to run a "particular" negative story on GM as it would hurt negotiations with the Goverent bailout.
ReplyDeleteSo what did Hunke do? He chose not to run the story and gave in to the Governor.
I am certain there are many of my friends at Freep that remember this very well and were incredibly disappointed. Miraculously, we all received very nice bonuses that year, tacitly thanking us for keeping it quiet.
As Hunke states..."in Detroit old rules still apply".