The original text of a March 31 Wilmington News Journal story in print about socialite Tatiana Copeland's donation to a local arts center, with her age -- 70 -- included in the second paragraph seen here . . .
. . . compared to the online version of the story, where her age was removed after she complained to an editor at the Delaware daily, according to Gannett Bloggers:
Earlier: Which editor scolded a reporter for accurately reporting the age of an influential local socialite?
Tatiana's in-laws are members of Delaware's royalty, the wealthy du Pont family.
ReplyDeleteWho cares?
ReplyDeletePeople like Jim are known fir hating the wealthy
ReplyDeleteNo way! Rich people do the darndest things -- and that makes for great stories. (See, for example, the Craig A. and Denise W. Dubow Scholarship Fund.)
ReplyDeletefor all the editorial folks that read this, please explain something to me - how is her age relevant to the story? It is NOT! How many stories appear in print when they don't mention the age - MOST of them. I wish this forum didn't turn into an attempt to sensationalize every single item of minutia at Gannett.
ReplyDeleteyou people are a dying breed. journalists are not emperors or the supreme beings you once thought you were. you're over-paid wordsmiths... Come on. So what a person's age was removed from a story. It's not like the woman was arrested... She gave a million dollars to an organization. How does her age matter? Get off your high horses and get a dose of reality. The news business is not the church - it is a for profit organization, always has been! This holier than thou journalistic thing is an endangered attitude to be sure. stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteIncredible scoop! Alert the media!
ReplyDeleteWho cares.... If she is 70, she is 70. You can't magically erase that fact. She needs to get over her self.
ReplyDeleteOverpaid? hey 9:52, I bet you wouldn't last a week in any newsroom. Go back under the bridge Troll!
ReplyDeleteOK, perhaps I am what 9:52 calls an overpaid wordsmith. However, I probably started in this business long before he was a twinkle in his dad's eyes.
ReplyDeleteThere is such a thing as journalistic integrity. Her age is irrelevant to the story. Her photo also gives you a pretty good idea how old she is.
That said, once the age is published, it is sad that the editors knuckled to political pressure to remove her age. Bet they would not have done that for Joe Six Pack's mom.
Again, journalistic integrity.
Sigh. For non-journalists who just don't get it: Someone with wealth and power got a story changed after it was published. Would editors do that for every reader who complains about some trivial but accurate detail in a story? Doubt it. And if editors will bend on something as verifiable and uncontroversial as someone's age, how much will they rewrite when something really fuzzy and controversial get disputed?
ReplyDeleteJournalists, whatever their many failings, are ferocious idealists and egalitarians. They may have to submit to the oligarchy that cows their editors, but they don't have to like it.
This is why the alleged emphasis on watchdog journalism is a joke. The spineless creatures that pass as managers roll over the minute somebody whines.
ReplyDelete11:06 nails the central issue here.
ReplyDeleteDavid Ledford is an ass. This guy bends over for all wealthy Wilmingtonians. If Tatiana calls up! Ledford is there keeping up her mess.
ReplyDeleteTatiana Copeland is a real pig too. She and her husband strong arm all the local non-profits in Wilmington, DE. If she gives you a million dollars, then she expects her name in bright lights across the venue. Case in point, The Queen is now named The Tatiana Love Shack!
Bitch!
Having been on both sides of the "fence" (editor and reporter), this bugs me: reporters make tons of decisions about what to include/not to include in every story. This type of thing happens every day in community journalism. Somebody says "oh, and don't mention that my car is blue" or somesuch. Reporter says "whatever" and agrees, because that reporter knows that the story could be written a million different ways. But the moment an editor wants to change something, the weeping/wailing begins. Like every word is sacred. Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me is that the print and online versions are different.
ReplyDeleteI can understand if online offers a MORE detailed article, or explanatory graphs, or video (electrons are cheaper than newsprint), but not the other way around.
When you go to a newspaper's website, aren't you generally expecting to be able to read the paper they published that day? Now, that said, updates during the day, that are not possible with print editions, are expected, and can be posted as updates to the earlier story.
OK, I'm not a journalist or reporter. Tell me why this is unreasonable or why it doesn't work this way.
8:00: Here's hoping you're long gone from any editorial role.
ReplyDeleteThis is perhaps the dumbest post I've ever seen here. The age was completely irrelevant to the story and probably a dig by the reporter who probably despises the woman and her money and her influence and should have been removed by the editor in the first round before it was ever published. And yes, I would have done the same thing for John Smith's grandmother had she called in with a similar complaint ... because it's VALID.
ReplyDeleteThe du Pont aspect is very relevant. Du Pont interests owned the News Journal before they sold it to Gannett.
ReplyDeleteThis post is NOT stupid at all. Anon@1035 must believe the media should serve only the rich and powerful. In polite circles it's seen as tailoring content. In plain English it's corporate censorship of the news, period, stop.
If I were her, I'd WANT folks to know that I'm only 70. The photo makes her look like she's 10 to 15 years older than that.
ReplyDeleteDetails make a difference in journalism, and an individual's age is a detail.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, someone's age isn't always important -- and on occasion, it can be so irrelevant as to be a distraction.
That wasn't the case here. The story says that Copeland toured the Queen theater on her birthday. That would logically raise a question in the reader's mind: Which birthday? Good journalists anticipate, and answer, reader questions.
Knowing Copeland's age, 70 -- and that of her husband's, were it included -- also offers a perspective on their philanthropy and its limitations.
Giving late in life suggests they may be concerned about their legacy in their twilight years. It also makes clear that they may not be around much longer to support local charities. On the other hand, were they only in their 30s, for example, we would draw different conclusions.
More broadly, age is one of those details that offers context about someone's qualifications, abilities and perspective.
Craig Dubow is 56 years old. Gracia Martore will be 60 in September. Gannett's mandatory retirement age is 65. Knowing this, we can see that, even if Martore were promoted to replace Dubow, her term would be limited.
To cite another example, Gannett recently appointed its first chief marketing officer, Maryam Banikarim. She is 42. Knowing her age frames by one measure her professional experience and outlook -- especially as a member of the powerful Gannett Management Committee, where she is now the youngest member.
Bigger news in Wilmington this week is its print redesign. Something that may be on the way for other sites.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011104100367
The relevancy of the information is not the point. The point is that someone with wealth and clout forced an editor to change content. That simple act surely makes people wonder what else is being withheld from print based on the whims and sensitivities of the rich and powerful.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shamefully weak-kneed decision by an editor who should know better. I mean, if your biggest advertisers are allowed to call the shots, it's time to reclassify your business from newspaper to shopper.
My bet is that staffers there are mortified and demoralized by such a public display of pandering.
I used to work for Ledford.
ReplyDeleteHe was a tool.
Some things never change.
The first story the features editor edits, will be the first story the features editor edits. Plus the new guy, Stoney LaDouche has zero editorial background so he's turned the hen house over to his editor and is hoping for the best. As you can see - that's not working out very well. I've got a feeling they might want to stock pile some first amendment lawyer protection money just in case.
ReplyDeleteWho is Stoney LaDouche?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDavid Ledford's a pompous ass who wants the News Journal to be his personal friend machine, not a newspaper with teeth.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, there are some good reporters who don't let that happen.
Unfortunately, the majority of reporters there now are the clueless ones Ledford hired since he arrived. They tell you the news -- a month after you heard it at the WaWa.
If Ledford were fired tomorrow, all those terrible sub-editors who show up at his parties would quickly unfriend him.
The News Journal once was a very good paper.
ReplyDelete