I’ve often said that I don’t think it’s a good use of my position simply to convey the many, many objections I hear to individual pieces of commentary that run in The Star’s Opinion section. While I generally agree with the longstanding critique that the lineup of columnists tilts too far to the left for balance (something that I don’t think is quite as glaring today as it has been in recent years past), I don’t see the value of relaying subjecting opinions about columns in this space. After all, there’s no shortage of outlets for personal views on matters political and societal these days.
One emailer this week expressed a thought analogous to this conversation, and it’s one I hear often:
“When will the powers that be at The Kansas City Star realize that (Pundit X) does not express the general philosophy of Midwesterners and the vast majority of Kansas City Star readers, and in fact offends their sensibilities? Indeed, (Pundit X) reflects a very small minority although it may be the prevalent view at The Kansas City Star.”
"I have a news tip for you, but it isn't about me. I would send it in, but I don't want my name to be in the paper."
So went a conversation with a reader this morning, and it's one I've had countless times over the years. Many people are concerned that any time they speak to a reporter, anything they say may be published.
The question of confidentiality and anonymity is a tricky one for journalists. It's its own big section in The Star's Code of Ethics. One of the most important pieces of advice there to journalists reads:
I heard an interesting, and I think for me novel, objection from a reader over a sidebar to the review of the movie "Kon-Tiki."
Read, with pleasure this morning the movie review about, 'Kon Tiki' and was enjoying the historical side article about the influence the movie had in Kansas City. That was until I came to the superfluous and bigoted sentence, in parentheses, [Castaways and Kon-Tiki on Main] 'both of which later became gay bars.'
Seriously? Please explain to me just how that sentence added to the article. Had it been a side article about the history of Gays in Kansas City, then, yeah, it would not have been out of place. Because the side article clearly wasn't about that, your aside just appears to be both gratuitous and bigoted.
Not many things are slam-dunk hits with readers, as longtime followers of my blog and columns can attest. But I can honestly say that I’ve rarely heard anything but positive feedback about the E-Star, the online edition of The Star’s print edition. It’s a facsimile of the print version of The Kansas City Star, available on computers, tablets and phones.
But unfortunately, it’s having a tech issue this morning, and I’m hearing from many readers about it. The company that produces it is on the case, and I will post an update when the problems are resolved.
I get a lot of story ideas suggesting that The Star investigate what look like scams in waiting. I know readers enjoy this kind of coverage, and it does provide an important public service. The press’ watchdog role is one of its most important, and that should extend to commerce as well as the government.
An emailer today had one such recommendation:
I went to a wedding show. Signed up for give-aways. Got a call today – celebrity china and cookware, free glasses and free 3-day/two night hotel. Looked online. Found a ton of scam reviews. I’ve got an appointment for this coming Wednesday night — if a reporter wants to pretend to be a part of my wedding party.
Can a story be both interesting and repellent at the same time? Absolutely, according to readers who have contacted me about how The Kansas City Star has covered the news lately.
We have all seen too many grim subjects in current events over the past few weeks: a multiple murder on an Ottawa farm, women imprisoned for a decade in a Cleveland house, death and dismemberment at the Boston Marathon finish line. It’s understandable that some readers have felt the overload.
“I almost hate that I read today’s piece about these poor girls saved in Cleveland,” said a caller last week. “It’s like I feel myself wanting to know every detail about it, but I also want to say, just step back and put the paper down.
This is a complex one. A brief in the May 1 paper (which didn’t appear on KansasCity.com), recounted two meetings it took to elect a new president to the Ray-Pec school board. The story read:
In three votes at the first meeting, the board split 3-3 each time between York and board member Joe Anthuis, the district said in a news release. Anderson was out of town and available on speaker phone, but he couldn't vote because he had not received the oath of office to begin his next term.
The board reconvened on April 15, and Anderson was sworn in. But this time Ruth Johnson was out of town on speaker phone. She could not vote because Anthuis requested a roll call vote, which requires members to be physically present. The board then deadlocked three more times.
Derek Donovan is The Kansas City Star's public editor. This blog is a place for you to share your thoughts about how The Star and KansasCity.com cover the news.
Derek has been with the paper since 1995, and he's also director of research and information. He contributes occasional reviews and features to the Features sections as well. The emphasis here is always on fairness and accuracy, but all sorts of other topics will come to the forefront, of course.
All Star journalists must follow The Star newsroom's Code of Ethics. The Star and KansasCity.com are for you, and your insights help journalists bring you the news that you need to stay informed and engaged. Share your thoughts. Start a conversation.
