Have Soapbox, Will Travel

Good Sunday morning to you all.  I got up early today to enjoy the birds singing, the morning paper, and a cup of coffee.  By myself. 

But the front page of my local paper is what got my blood really coursing.  Or my mouth cursing.  Whatever.   

So, this morning at 7:00 a.m., I drafted and sent the following letter to the assistant managing editor of the St. Louis Post Dispatch.  Stupid heads.

Dear Mr. Parker,

I am a 20 plus year subscriber to the Post Dispatch.  I read your paper every morning. 

I've noticed an alarming trend, epitomized by this morning's edition. Three of the six stories on the first three pages of the front section of the Final Metro Edition of the paper are what I'd call sensationalist.  Not necessarily in content, but certainly in tone. 

Above the fold, page one, the story is about the city's policy concerning rewarding long-time employees for not using all available sick days.  Your headline shrieks about "pricey perks" and uses the term "draining the city of millions".  You go on the enumerate several employees, most of which have worked for the city for 20 plus years, and their retirement bonuses for not using sick days.  One gal worked for 43 years and got more than $81,000.  Sounds like a lot until you do math and realize that she actually gets about $1800 for each year -- not a huge bonus but generous and delayed over time.  Frankly it's not whether or not I object to the city policy, but your article is written which such slanted, sensationalist language so as to leave me no question as to whether you all object to it.  Which shouldn't matter -- unless this is an op-ed piece.  At which point, put it on the right page.

Also on page one is a story about looming recession.  Breathlessly reporting that "more people are eating in" and "some" worry about gas and getting to jobs.  Flip to page eight and the story elaborates about a few people eating out less, ostensibly to both save money and stay home with their three year old.  I don't know about you but I've had several three year olds and I stayed at home with them too as they often aren't fit for public consumption ... or consumption in public. And there was a dropped line about certain restaurants noticing a downturn, but no facts, no numbers.  Well, except for the insert which noted what I'd term modestly rising prices on 4 different things from meat to washers.  Which I guess is my point.  There is no dearth of number crunching going on out there about the current down turn, but the Post chose, on the front page no less, to do a fluff piece about this very serious topic.

Finally, on page three, there is another fluffy piece about exhausted bloggers.  The news reporters becoming the news.  Again.  I felt the same way about your fugitive series.  The first bit was well researched, and while I thought it tended toward slamming the police when I think it's really that they don't get the resources from government to do this important job -- Homeland security my ear...  But the follow-up, self congratulatory, "look at the what happens when WE shine the light on this stuff" articles were, well, biased.  As in not "strictly the facts, ma'am."

The Sunday edition would seem to me the time to take on the serious stuff and go in depth.  Folks have all day to consume the paper and more people get the Sunday paper than the daily one.  Really... a missed opportunity I think, and the low road.  Not all of us want sensationalist news.  We want a myriad of sources and we want to weigh what we read and hear and see and make decisions for ourselves.  I've always wanted my print news to give me what radio and tv won't -- depth.  And unflinching, unbiased reporting.  The bias that is creeping into the Post's reporting is what I find disturbing.  Because it sneaks past the casual reader and masquerades as fact.

Sincerely,

Annie
St. Louis

Ok.  I didn't sign it Annie -- but the rest is exactly what I sent this guy.  And I couldn't find a link on their website to the ombudsman either ... you know, the person who's supposed to be the link between the public and the paper?  I guess they don't call it that any more.  Or they think we're too dumb to know what an ombudsman is.   And you probably think I'm nit picking or over the edge or "Really, Annie, it's just the paper, it's not about you".  But this kind of sloppiness or blurry reporting (obviously) really bugs me.

You'll remember the last time I blogged about my local paper.  And the time after that.  It's getting to be a trend.  I'd really like another choice.  'Cause I'm really a morning paper kind of girl, you know?  And I'd prefer that it be my coffee that gets me going in the morning, not the contents of the paper. 

And you know what else?  Hubster would prefer that too as he is often the victim of the first run of any of my opinions.  And bless him.  He is not a morning person, coffee or no.

Comments

[Bobbi]

Good for you! I'd suggest snail mailing a copy as well. I know first hand that the mailed opinion get more attention than an emailed one. Try it and see what happens.

[Carole]

I think it's great that you wrote to them. So many people feel a certain way but never express it. At least you've taken a pro-active stance.

[Lucia]

I can only say: I feel your pain.

[Alex]

The sensationalist trend you're speaking of reminds me of the media's coverage after the 6-year elections when voters turned out in record numbers to give control back to the Dems. Not all of the commentators, but many, said things like, "well, it appears there is some opposition to the war after all." Or how about Paris Hilton consistently beating out international events in the top news line-ups?

My point is that phenomenon of the news reporters becoming the news themselves or of focusing their reports on fluff is just what makes many people - including me - eschew mainstream media. You just can't get the facts.

Glad you took the initiative and sent the letter - maybe they'll listen. BTW, do you remember the Globe-Democrat? That was my parent's choice, although they'd frequently buy the Post just to make sure they were hearing things from other points of view...