Editor’s Note
Back in the old days — that’s less than a decade and before there were such things as blogs and interactive conversations with readers — editors used to respond to their newspaper readers with an “editor’s note.” Sometimes it clarified a point made in a letter to the editor. Sometimes it offered a correction. Sometimes it was just a simple explanation. An editor’s note was a handful of sentences; maybe a four or five paragraphs. It was always a personal link between the editor and the reader. Only difference between it and today’s blog is the immediacy and the platform. Welcome to Editor’s Note.

Archive for May 8th, 2009

Verify before you txt it

2 comments May 8th, 2009

People say unpleasant things about the Register Star and those of us who do the news and opinion in the News Tower. Usually we shrug it off; an opinion is, after all, an opinion. But when a statement is flat out inaccurate, we expect a correction, retraction or clarification the same as any reader would.

Thursday afternoon I called Dan Lewandowski, chair of the Winnebago County Democratic Party asking for an explanation and a retraction. Lewandowski recently sent a text message to what he told me was four or five people. That text message read: “Register Star top brass killed (a story on Dave Syverson’s appearance at Ellis School) against the wishes of editors per a source in the media.”

Since I figured that as editor it was safe to assume I was “top brass” or close, and since I knew we had not killed any such story, I was perplexed.

Killing a story, in journalism parlance, is a big deal, a very big deal. It doesn’t happen casually because killing a story can conjure all manner of mad, unethical, unsavory things. In 37 years in the business, I cannot remember a single time I have ever killed a story. Delayed publication? Yes. Sent it back for more reporting? Yes. Told reporters and editors to take it back to the drawing board and start over? Yes. Decided not to report and write it in the first place? Yes. Killed it? No.

Lewandowski  either was burned by his source or he didn’t understand what he was hearing. Either way, what he texted was wrong. Top brass at the newspaper did not kill a story.

We did, however, decide late in the day not to cover it because we had reporters working on other stories we thought had higher priorities. Lewandowski would have known that had he called to confirm what he said his source told him. (Chuck Sweeny was there for about an hour, but since the meeting was the result of a column he’d written, it would not have been appropriate for him to cover the news meeting on it.)

He didn’t call any of us “brass” to ask about it or anyone else in the Tower either apparently. He wrote the text and sent it. And, it got forwarded a lot because it eventually ended up on my desk.

Lewandowski sent a text correction Thursday. He said he would do so. I trusted he would. And, on Friday morning, I knew that he did.

The great thing about text messages and the Web world is that we don’t have to wait for anything. It’s not called instant messaging for the heck of it.

But speed can kill, to borrow a phrase. Sending without verifying is at best dumb, at worst damaging. Once you hit send, you cannot take it back. Text messages take on lives of their own as receivers forward them on — and on and on.

We saw that at work in the Rockford mayoral campaign when a forwarded message ran close to the defamation line.  And it happened again with the Lewandowski text.

Two things out of this: (1) I am not going to sit idly by and have public officials and public figures malign this newspaper, this newsroom, or our journalists. When we screw up, I’ll take the heat. When we make mistakes, we correct the errors. But, I will not be quiet when we are misrepresented; and (2) if there’s any doubt about the damage that can be done by carelessly texting without regard to the ramifications, this situation ought to clear that up.

Now, before I post this, I am going to edit it, sit on it, re-read it, and then send it.