TEMPLE: Responding to reader comments

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, May 16, 2008

You've heard the saying, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Well, it's no secret that some who spend their time commenting on Web sites, including our own, don't have much nice to say. Their comments can get downright nasty.

But you might be surprised to know that most who send me e-mails in response to this column actually seem to live by the adage. Maybe we're a more civil society than many like to believe.

Some of these e-mails are short. "Subject: Great column re: graduation and RBA," was one such message last week.

"With excellent advice I'm clipping for myself to remember! Good luck, John," Jill Zimon wrote.

Often writers offer advice. "Keep striving for more balance," one told me.

Others take me to task, respectfully.

"I appreciate your writing a column describing your position regarding opinion columns, now I wish you would write another column explaining why news of the war and the death of our kids deserves no better than page 14 coverage.

"Only think: If someone were eventually to publish a book of the front pages you ran during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, just what would it look like? And how proud would you be?"

I try to respond to most e-mails. For example, in this case, I wrote:

"If you're a regular reader of the Rocky Mountain News you know that this newspaper has done an enormous amount of work on the impact of the war on the lives of Coloradans. The paper was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes for its extraordinary in-depth coverage of a Marine major and his work with the families of the fallen. I'm not going to argue the point with you. Just point out that there's another side to the story."

Yes, the disagreement is often deep, as in the case of a former University of Colorado journalism professor responding to last week's column. But it's also generally thoughtful.

"You told the graduates, 'we've moved from an era of great companies and corporations dominating the media landscape to an era where power is shifting to the creative and talented individual, just as power is shifting to the individual consumer.'

"The question that immediately came to mind was whether you've filled up your car at a local gas pump lately, or shopped at a supermarket recently, activities I undertake weekly. Each time I do, I feel as powerless as a mouse must feel facing a rapacious predator."

Frank Kaplan went on to decry what he's seen happen to journalism. "In short, the primary goal became not social responsibility and a well informed citizenry as a democracy demands, but a realized profit at the end of the day.

"To believe that corporations would release this power over the media to the 'creative and talented' individuals as you would have the graduates you addressed believe is misguided and disturbing. They should be told the truth and know what to expect when joining today's corporate- dominated communications industry: that profit rules and independence of the press in this country, devoid of corporate and government influence, is in effect non-existent. To believe otherwise is failing to face the existing reality."

I tried to respond to a few of his points.

"Corporations don't have the choice whether to 'release' power; it's happening and they don't know what to do about it. Just ask the folks in the music industry, television and publishing. First Napster and then many others have come along to alter the distribution and sharing of music. Youtube and cheap video cameras are undermining network television. And print publishing is being eroded by everything from craigslist to cell phones. Yet, in my view much has improved as a result. There's never been more independence of the press, as long as you don't narrowly define the press as existing news organizations. There are more voices today than ever before."

A pleasure of many such exchanges is that they remain civil.

"I, too, wish we had had the opportunity to meet," Kaplan responded, "although it's evident from our respective points of view that neither of us would move the other an inch regarding today's repressive atmosphere imposed on the mass media - newspapers, periodicals and the electronics media - by their corporate owners and the Bush administration.

"I wish you many successes in your career and much happiness and harmony in your life."

It makes me feel good when somebody responds this way. It encourages me to write back to another stranger.

John Temple can be reached at editor@RockyMountain News.com or by mail at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.

• May 17, 2008

  12:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  With readership, advertising, circulation and profits all rapidly tumbling, isn't that enough dialogue? That says it all, what more do you need to know? Just look at a ten-year stock chart of The New York Times for more clues--if you still need them. You are not alone.

  Its not just the internet and more choices; its your absence of VERITAS. America is sick and tired of the liberal agenda, the constant and relentless gloom and doom (look at those recession, Tobacco Road, stories that you headlined right before the not so bad Q1 economic report made the RMN look like a bunch of fools) and we now get our news and information from faster, more reliable and more accurate/objective sources. You lost your monopoly, you lost your credibility and you lost your relevance.

  The MSM Titanic needs more than just a deck-chair rearrangement, you are in very serious economic and financial trouble.

• May 22, 2008

  10:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Ashley writes:

  Yet despite the gloom and doom, I note you're a regular poster here, Sasquatch. The journalism industry is going through major upheaval right now, but that doesn't mean it's dying. Rather, news gathering has become more timely and focused than ever because of the constant, almost insatiable, desire for the most up-to-date information available. I, for one, am constantly on news media sites during the day; RMN, MSNBC.com and my local news. The "liberal media" argument is tired and old; hang it up somewhere.

• May 23, 2008

  7:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  The "liberal media" argument is tired and old..."

  I can see by your choice of news sources that you prefer the liberal bias; the view from the left. The "upheaval" you refer to is the loss of monopoly that has produced a massive loss of market share and loss of profits. This loss of monopoly by the old media has been accelerated by the new media exposing old media weaknesses, lack of timely information, shortcomings, inaccuracies, agendas and bias while capturing its market share. More specifically, its phony stories and fabrications with no basis in reality that appeared on CBS's "60-Minutes" and in The New York Times that have severely compromised their credibility.

  When given a choice, people will always migrate to where their intelligence is best treated. Its never been easier. You haven't yet made that transition; you have chosen to stick with the buggy-whip industry. Just take a look at the long-term stock chart of The New York Times, it looks like a plunging buggy whip to me!

• May 23, 2008

  8:12 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  FOX KO'S CBS, ABC & NBC:

  (AP):Fox captured the distinction of America's most popular television network for the first time since it began operation in 1987.

  Fox took that title from CBS. It was the only major broadcast network with more prime-time viewers than the previous season, a distinction helped by its telecast of the Super Bowl. Fox didn't show television's biggest event during the 2006-7 season.

  Fox averaged 11.1 million viewers in prime-time this season through Tuesday, up 7 percent from last year. The numbers will probably inch up when the "American Idol" finale is figured in.

  CBS was second with 10.5 million viewers. It had the sharpest drop among the big broadcast networks, at 16 percent. Analysts said CBS was particularly hurt by the television writers strike, when it relied heavily on reruns that didn't do as strongly in the ratings as the network anticipated.

  ABC was third with 10 million viewers (down 7 percent) and NBC finished fourth with 8.9 million (down 9 percent). The troubled CW network was down 19 percent, with 2.6 million viewers, and faces the loss of professional wrestling next season, one of its most popular programs.
  -------

  It took only 2 decades...FOX succeeded in capturing the #1 spot from CBS, ABC, and NBC using the very same media, the very same technology, the same advertisers and often the same sources of information. Ashley, why do you think that "upheaval" took place so very rapidly? I'll give you a clue: intelligence always migrates to where it is best treated. Mr. Templeton has also yet to figure-out the obvious.

• May 30, 2008

  7:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  John, you have been running your "alien" story for several days now. Is this your idea of performing the community a service by keeping us educated and informed? And you wonder why circulation, advertising, readership and profits are plunging?