Disclaimer: I can no longer tell if journalism about journalism is interesting to normal people. I scour Romenesko every morning (and afternoon, and late afternoon, middle of the night, etc.). I get excited about stories about readership trends. I pore over ombudsman columns from newspapers I don't actually read.
So for all I know, normal readers' eyes glazed over at this Sunday's column by Tony Marcano, the Sacramento Bee ombud. It's an explanation of how his paper put together its coverage of last Tuesday's election in California, with a short critique at the end.
But maybe there's value to printing a story like this -- written by the ombudsman or someone else -- even if not every reader will dig it. Or even if most won't.
There's a remarkable transparency to Marcano's narrative, and somehow I think it's worth having a story like this as part of the Bee's, or any newspaper's, record. If you can't make space for it in the print edition, what about publishing it as a web special? If you can't spare a staff writer, what about using an intern or giving a copy editor some reporting experience? The sources are all close at hand, after all.
I don't think it's just journalists that are interested in newspapers' decision-making processes. But even if it generally is, you never know when you'll be called upon to defend a big decision or stave off charges of bias, especially during political season. Just imagine being able to respond to such critiques like this: "Well, we thought about that. In fact, it's been on our website for weeks. Here's the link."
Comments