Welcome to Russ McBee Sign in | Join | Help

Looking back on the KNS coverage

As regular (or even sporadic) readers of this blog probably know, I was one of three Knoxville-area bloggers to volunteer to cover the News Sentinel's reportage of its editor's lawsuit against Knox County Commission. Since the editor is the lead plaintiff in the case, the paper has an automatic and obvious conflict of interest in covering the story; for that reason, Editor Jack McElroy made an entirely reasonable call for outsiders to examine the paper's coverage for indications of bias or compromises of objectivity.

That's exactly what I've spent the last three weeks trying to do. I've gone out of my way to make my critiques non-personal, and to focus entirely on the words of the finished articles as they appear in the newspaper. Although the trial isn't over yet, enough articles have accumulated by now to enable me to look back on them as an emerging body of work.

Looking through the posts I've written on the News Sentinel's coverage of the trial (all of which are aggregated here), I count 24 news articles which have appeared in the printed version of the paper. Of those 24, I have identified 10 with significant problems of bias or slant.

Of course, that means the majority of the 24 (the remaining 14) had no problems at all (and I've made a deliberate effort to mention those); however, those 10 problematic articles out of 24 amount to 42 percent of the coverage.

That isn't such a hot record.

I'll have a lot more to say about this experiment after it's over (and please, Dear Lord, don't let there be endless appeals of the outcome); for now, I'll just say that if Mr. McElroy wants to make processes like this transparent and credible, he should encourage his editors and reporters to engage with bloggers in an open, public, and transparent way. The process of critiquing the news would have been more complete, and I believe more beneficial, if News Sentinel staff had been encouraged to respond to these critiques.

Maybe they feel that public comments on the trial coverage could somehow jeopardize the suit; that could be a valid concern. But it would seem to me that any effective outreach to bloggers as a market segment and as a community remains incomplete unless there is an open, responsive, and transparent dialogue as part of the process.

I won't bite. I promise.

Share this post: Email | del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit
Published Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:15 PM by RussMcBee
Filed under: ,

Comments

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:01 PM by Jamie Satterfield

# re: Looking back on the KNS coverage

How can you possibly say there has been no dialogue with the reporter (which by the way is me and me only)? I have twice emailed you when your opinions of coverage were reached as a result of error on your part. Otherwise, I chose not to respond so it would not appear that I was in any way trying to influence your critique.

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:27 PM by RussMcBee

# re: Looking back on the KNS coverage

Jamie, please read the post again. I didn't say there'd "been no dialogue with the reporter." I said it would have been nice to engage in a dialogue "in an open, public, and transparent way."

Also, you asked me to keep the first email private, and I did so. I also assumed you wanted to keep the second one private. By mentioning them here in a public comment, I'm assuming you won't mind if I respond by discussing those emails.

There has been no *public* dialogue in this process, and that's what I said in my post. Private correspondence is another matter.

The first email you sent was about this post:

http://russmcbee.com/archive/2007/09/11/reporting-the-news-vs-shaping-the-story.aspx

You said that the two TV stations didn't report on it because they weren't present for the hearing. That's fair enough. You didn't, however, respond to the remaining critique in that post. Your email about that post was the one you asked me to keep private, and that's what I've done.

The second email you sent me was about this post:

http://russmcbee.com/archive/2007/09/28/the-news-sentinel-takes-lumpy-for-a-spin.aspx 

Your email claimed that my critique of your coverage was not "factual," yet you provided no evidence to show that I wasn't being factual. My reply to you went to great lengths to defend that post, and I stand by every word of it until the substance of it is rebutted. Please show me in that post where my reading of the news story was not "factual."

As I said in the post above, it would have been nice to engage in a back-and-forth dialogue in an "open, public, and transparent way." Your private emails are not open, public, or transparent unless you explicitly tell me to publish them. The public does not benefit from private correspondence, and that's what the above post is about.

And, by all means, if my critique is off base, I'd like to know about it. Publicly.

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:44 PM by newscoma

# re: Looking back on the KNS coverage

I think the whole experiment here was about transparency about coverage.

Jamie, what offenses do you think Russ made? I think this would be an interesting place to express that and both of you respond freely.

Wasn't this what the whole blogger/news experiment was all about?

Incidentally, not in Knoxville, but watching the whole process from the beginning. Because, I feel this is sort of a big deal.

Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:14 PM by RussMcBee

# re: Looking back on the KNS coverage

Jamie, since you decided to make your emails to me public, I went back and edited this post with an update:

http://russmcbee.com/archive/2007/09/11/reporting-the-news-vs-shaping-the-story.aspx

The section of that post regarding the racial makeup of the jury has been superceded by your statement that neither TV station assigned a reporter to cover the story, and the post now reflects that information. The remainder of my critique in that post (about the slanted language used) remains in effect.

Thank you for your feedback.

To prevent spam, anonymous comments are disabled. Click here to register for the site, or click here to sign in.