Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Media / News Bites Do newspapers think we can't see who's missing?
Posted by Michael Miner on 02.08.12 at 09:01 AM
And met the man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today.
I wish, I wish, he’d go away.
His absence haunts the Tribune, and a lot of other papers too. He (or, very definitely, she) is remembered as an editor. Not the lofty editor who designs and leads the great campaigns that win the coveted prizes. And not the obsessive who can lecture an hour about the comma. I'm speaking of the minions who once formed the protective layer of surly common sense that insulated a newspaper's daily report from the reporters' illogic, muddled language, and failure to think through what they were trying to write about.
Monday I ran into this missing editor in a profile of local science fiction writer Gene Wolfe, who’s receiving an award from the Chicago Literary Hall of Fame. I read:
His first attempt at selling a book, an offer for $2,000, went nowhere.“I figured that would be enough to buy furniture,” he said. “Well, the book never sold, but we did eventually save enough money to buy furniture…”
As any able desk man or desk woman would testily inquire, what does this mean? Who offered whom $2,000? If someone offered it to Wolfe, why didn’t he take it? It sounds as if Wolfe did the offering, but that makes no sense at all. Maybe it was the price Wolfe demanded for his manuscript, a price no publisher met. In which case there was no offer. Did the book never sell to a publisher? Or did a publisher—perhaps promising Wolfe the first $2,000 in sales revenues—bring it out, but nobody bought it?
I read the passage two or three times and still had no idea. The editor who wasn’t there had really done it this time.
A day later, he showed up on page one.
It's a story about a lawsuit. An Oak Park man, James Bogard, is suing the village because its fire fighters smashed “gaping holes” in a small house he owned during a training exercise back in 2008, and then Oak Park demanded he fix up the place on his own dime and began fining him $600 a day when he did not.
If we read carefully—the story only suggests this, and in passing—we gather that the village picked Bogard’s house for its exercise because it thought the house was about to be torn down. But why did Oak Park think that? We’re not told. We read that the village received a signed agreement from a developer with some connection to Bogard, but what that connection amounted to legally is never made clear.
We gather that Bogard never lived in the house, which is in the 800 block of Forest Avenue in Oak Park. He bought it in 2007 intending to flip it, but then the market crashed. “The developer he lined up to buy the house walked away from the deal, records show.”
Lined up? What does that mean—a contract, a handshake, or something else? The story goes on, “Before bailing, the developer signed a ‘hold harmless agreement,’ allowing the Fire Department to use the house for training exercises, court records indicate. The developer is listed on the agreement as the ‘owner or authorized agent.’” Apparently he wasn’t the owner—Bogard still was. But what was he—a lying con man, someone who believed he owned the place, or someone so close to owning it he thought he could make a decision for the owner?
As we're scratching our heads, the Tribune tells us:
Bogard filed a federal lawsuit in June 2009 against Oak Park, three Fire Department employees and the builder, alleging they violated his rights under the Constitution, court records show.
An editor on his toes would never have let that go by. “Who the hell is this builder?” he’d have shouted. “If you mean the developer, say so. [The Tribune did mean the developer.] This story’s hard enough to follow as it is without sprinkling cinnamon all over it.”
(Cinnamon was the editor’s little joke. Terrified reporters knew he meant synonyms.”)
The suit was promptly dismissed “without prejudice.” Why? The Tribune doesn’t say. If you’re curious, Judge Milton Shadur concluded that there was no federal issue for his court to address—as you can read here in his memorandum tossing the suit. Bogard then refiled his suit in the Cook County Courts, making one intriguing change the Tribune mentions but doesn’t explain—he dropped the developer as a defendant.
Again, why? And why does the Tribune never identify this developer, who seems to be at the center of the story? Perhaps this information will be helpful:
The developer was a Barney O’Reilly, who ran a company called Cherryfield Construction, got into all sorts of financial trouble when the housing market collapsed, and disappeared. It’s believed he went back to Ireland.
I know this because I found online a vastly more coherent report on the Bogard versus Oak Park dispute that was posted two and a half years ago on the website of Oak Park’s Wednesday Journal. It doesn’t nail down the relationship between Bogard and O’Reilly, but it’s jammed with interesting detail. For example, it tells us Reilly gave the fire department permission to smash up two houses—the one it turned out Bogard still owned and a house owned by O’Reilly a couple doors away. The fire department got interested in Bogard’s place when it showed up to turn off the water—a neighbor whose bad luck it was to live between the two houses had called to report that the pipes must have burst in Bogard’s empty house because she could hear water gushing. The neighbor mentioned to the fire crew that O’Reilly’s Cherryfield Construction owned the house and she believed it was about to be torn down.
One other thing. The Tribune tells its story almost entirely from Bogard's point of view, explaining that an Oak Park spokesman “said the village does not comment on pending litigation.” But this litigation has been pending in circuit court for 27 months. Has Oak Park never filed a response to the Bogard's charges? If it hasn’t, it’s doing such an astonishing job of dragging its heels in court that the Tribune needs to salute it. If it has, the Tribune ought to read the response and tell us what's in it.
I have my reasons for not mentioning the reporter of either of these stories. I don’t like the idea that their names would then be linked online with this critique forever. Besides, for all my good words for editors, they've been known to manhandle copy that has left the writers' hands. My big reason, though, is that I've turned in plenty of stories that were no better than these. Fortunately, a persnickety editor would usually save the day. But, a few scattered outposts of artisanal journalism notwithstanding, those finicky editors have been run out of the business as an unaffordable luxury. Actually, I wish, I wish they'd come back.
Comments (29)
Showing 1-29 of 29
The Tribune may calculate that its Carefree Couples and Frenzied Families are too carefree and/or frazzled to take much note of such slop.
like
dislikeSimilar thing happened in a much simpler story that ran Tuesday in the Tribune. The paper posted an AP story --- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b… --- saying that this is the 6th warmest winter on record for Illinois. But the story failed to mention what the warmest was. I emailed the scientist who was the source of the story, and he sent me a link to his blog which had the top 10. http://climateillinois.wordpress.com/2012/… The warmest was 1932 with an average temp of 36.8 degrees F. And, yes, like Mike, sharp-eyed editors saved my ass many times as a reporter.
What you're seeing here and everywhere are the youngest, greenest reporters writing without a net. No old grizzled grumpy people to ask them what the hell they mean and to help them translate government gobbleygook into English. No app for that yet.
No offense to the seasoned reporters at the Trib, but this is one of several reasons I've stopped reading the Trib; every time I do, I see the need for veteran editors and copy editors, and I get steamed about it all over again. From stories with gaping holes in them to copy that badly needs a punctuation overhaul, reading the Trib is just an act of aggravation to me. Enough! It's not like I expect top management there to learn. THAT ship sailed ages ago.
Looks like The Reader could use more editors too. You refer to the builder as both Reilly and O'Reilly and then use this gem of a sentence: Has Oak Park never filed a response to the Bogard's charges?
Regards,
A former Tribune editor
Read the lead story in the Chicagoland Health and Family section in the Wednesday Trib. The story touts the value of EKG tests for teenage athletes to determine whether they have heart problems. The anecdotal lead is a young woman who took the test and got a FALSE POSITIVE. This scared the daylights out of her, and she had to get an MRI to prove the EKG test wrong. (MRIs are expensive, but the story doesn't say how much it cost.) Somehow this is supposed to demonstrate the value of the original EKG test. A decent editor might have read the story and thrown it back at the reporter.
John Camper
Former Tribune reporter
The Tribune has alighted from the hand-basket and taken up its permanent quarters, to which it was deftly guided by Mr. Sam Zell and Co.
Reading these comments and Mr. Miner's original thoughts, one leaves this world and to visit another, one that's slower-paced, rational, kind, generous, enlightened, where values have weight and substance and benevolent authority figures reign over subordinates eager to do their duty and sustain a system that serves society and the country well, with malice toward none and charity for all.
Yes, it's like an episode of "Downton Abbey." Which is a good thing.
Pelham wrote my dream of a workplace that never existed but it is written so well I nearly let a tear slide down my cheek. Maybe Michael can figure out where the commas go in my sentence?
Maybe if you had to define a key difference between old media, as they developed, and new media it would be the fact that new media entrepreneurs are, in the main, indifferent about their copy, whereas old-media lords were passionate about it. For instance, competing newspapers in a city would battle for eyeballs by producing different packages of content -- from news to comics -- because their medium -- ink on paper -- was unremarkable.
Now it's a matter of medium -- PC, laptop, smartphone, iPad, iPod, Kindle, Nook, etc. -- and producing something that looks cute and can be flipped, pinched, fiddled and tweeted on touchscreens of varying sizes. The actual content that's being flipped and poked and flopped doesn't matter much, as long as it's simple and cheap.
That's a little unfair to some print newspapers still hanging on because, as Mr. Miner has said about the Tribune, they still do good journalism. But it's only just a little unfair. And that's because the good journalism is nothing they expect ever to generate any revenue and, therefore, nothing they much care about. It's there only as the background sizzle for the real steak, which is the bite-size lifestyle and entertainment piffle that, incidentally, the Tribune helped pioneer in print with the godawful RedEye. It's the stuff that can be easily transformed into mobile, interactive, QR-coded, AR-actuated content ideal for tiny screens and distracted minds. That's where the ad money is. Maybe.
By the way, Mr. Coates, thanks for the kind words. They mean a lot, coming from you.
I'm pretty sure that lifestyle and entertainment news had existed long before RedEye, Pelham.
"That's a little unfair to some print newspapers still hanging on because, as Mr. Miner has said about the Tribune, they still do good journalism."
Whoa there, fella. I am not sure what you're talking about here. From the verbose onanism of a Chris Borrelli to the fatuousness of a John Kass to the irrelevance of the editorial page to the unethical inanity of "Candid Candace" and now to the embarrassing dead-birth of "Printer's Row,' this paper is gefickt from front page to classifieds. The best people are gone or going; what's left are the soon-to-be leavings. You simply don't liquidate your best people and have any hope of "good journalism." Unless you call "Red Eye" "good journalism."
Remember ye olde Kup and Tower Ticker at the Sun-Times and Tribune, respectively? And the horrendous Sneed, at both papers, then and now? Bite-size piffle indeed.
And today's Sun-Times, which featured a big photo of Ford's new police pursuit car but identified it as Ford's new high-end racing convertible. Sigh. Everyone has gotten rid of so many editors that every mistake and mis-type--something that every writer commits at one point or another, making us all dependent on good editors to save us from ourselves--is getting into print now.
Which drives even more readers away.
There's also this rather bizarre photo caption on the Sun-Times article about Art Chicago being cancelled: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1051504… The entire caption appears to have been copied and pasted from a two-year-old article about the show. It mentions the dates that the show will take place (presumably in 2010) and such information as ticket prices. Needless to say, it seems really out of place for an article about the event folding for good. I don't know whether that caption is in the print edition as well.
Clearly, there are more important things than copy editing ... like finding secret coded messages in comic strips. Unlike grammar, punctuation and spelling, it's a talent that can't be taught at J-school.
"I'm speaking of the minions who once formed the protective layer of surly common sense that insulated a newspaper's daily report from the reporters' illogic, muddled language, and failure to think through what they were trying to write about."
Well, I'm happy to help in their absence.
@ IAC
Certainly piffle did exist before RedEye. But RedEye and others and online media have helped elevate piffle to new heights of piffle-tude and, more importantly, from a secondary to a primary role as revenue driver.
. . . that evidently isn't driving enough revenue to support the existence of sufficient numbers of quality copy editors, much less regional, national and foreign bureaus. Not sure about The Solution, but deliberate (talking both speed and motive here) deterioration of the product -- while promoting piffle and sideshows -- can't be the best of all possible business models for the survival of serious newspapers.
I have to say something for Chris Borrelli, who is both entertaining and highly productive. Yes, I wish Jim Coates was still around with his great column "Ask Jim Why," but even when I'm skimming the paper--which happens more and more these days--I'll always stop to read anything with a Borrelli byline.
I have to say something for Chris Borrelli, who is both entertaining and highly productive. Yes, I wish Jim Coates was still around with his great column "Ask Jim Why," but even when I'm skimming the paper--which happens more and more these days--I'll always stop to read anything with a Borrelli byline."
I am not sure why. He writes a lot - that's true - but the results are overlong, affected prose that focuses more on him and his writing "style" than the story. This is about as far away from what I know journalism to be as you can get. Indeed, he seems to want to be "Chris Borrelli presents..." rather than subsume his personality and unfold the story. (Every story isn't about you, Chris.) That's not journalism, that's "journo-tainment." Perfect for the "Red Eye" crowd, I guess. Anyway, you didn't say why in any substantive terms you appreciate The Master Verbator.
@ Dwelf - Well, I suggest you (and/or anyone curious about this subject) just do a search on "Chris Borrelli," click and and prepare to be delighted. Here's a personal favorite, a terrific read on an event that, in other hands, would've been mundane, predictable and not nearly as much fun to read.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04…
"Maybe it was the price Wolfe demanded for his manuscript, a price no publisher met. In which case there was no offer."
Wolfe offered his book for a particular price. Seems like an offer to me.
@ Dwelf - Well, I suggest you (and/or anyone curious about this subject) just do a search on "Chris Borrelli," click and and prepare to be delighted. Here's a personal favorite, a terrific read on an event that, in other hands, would've been mundane, predictable and not nearly as much fun to read.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04…
The article to which the link leads starts off being about Carrie Fisher, even down to a question about personal grooming - I thought I was going to get to know her more. Misled: this is about comic cons. And, "dear reader," (and this cliche is "delightful"?), after Fisher, the article veers to impressionistic reporting about comic cons, then to ... the reader gets the idea - or rather *doesn't* get the ideas. "Mundane" and "predictable" are one thing. "Undisciplined, uninformative and not well put together" are something else. I would imagine that you, as a newspaper person would, like any critic, get tired of the "nearly not as much fun to read," but the reading, paying public doesn't shell out money for a newspaper featuring articles that are really more about a reporter's writing than information, well -written about and delivered. (Remember, that's why we need good editors? The point of the article?) And why can't we have "delightful" with "clear" and "informative"? Actually we never get either with B. My guess is that B. can't really take editing, that everything he writes he must fancy is channeled from some pool of higher-than-"mundane" talent. Well, as William Bendix said in "Duffy's Tavern," "I got news for the bot' of youse." Prolific, maybe. "Delightful," no.
This underemployed editor appreciates your commentary. Always have. It's nice to know there are people out there who can read between the lines and see all the empty desks.
Seems the Bleader's needing some editorial attention, too: you don't close” quotes without first opening them. (Not that I'm blaming you, Mike.)
Experienced, redundant editors can also save a paper's bacon when it comes to libel -- which can damage not only your reputation, but your pocketbook as well. In one of the first headlines I ever wrote in a metro daily, I convicted an area man of burglary without benefit of trial. (I place the blame, conveniently, on newbie nerves.) Fortunately, more experienced eyes were looking over my shoulder, and I never committed such an amateurish mistake again. Nowadays, at the Trib and elsewhere, there are fewer and fewer sets of eyes around to catch such errors, whether in headlines or in copy. One missing “allegedly” makes a huge difference. Another reason why canning editors is penny wise and pound foolish.
And yeah, when I said I wrote a libelous headline "in a metro daily," it actually got in -- that is, into the early edition for the boonies. We fixed it before it got into City. Ideally, we'd have caught it long before. But if that can happen on a fully manned and womaned desk, what happens when the desk gets sliced to a skeleton?
