A response from Alec!
Well, at least one person reads the 'Grok besides Doug and I!
Alec read what I said and responded to it in a comment, which I put up. Well, it was such a good one, I decided to make it a post (and of course, comment upon it) all on its own.
After all, it is fun to have "conversations" with folks!
Sigh.
Skip my man, it is time to learn to take some constructive criticism. As someone who is all too quick to point out that he is “the new guy” and still has a lot to learn, I had hoped you’d see the value in some objective advice.
We all know that the Grok’s aim is to provide you guys a sounding board on the issues of the day. I’d never suggest that you would want to or need to lose the right to throw your own two cents (or 75 cents) into a discussion for the sake of reporting integrity.
What I am suggesting is that it would be of great benefit to you to try and separate the news you produce and the commentary you provide a little more. You agree with me that you editorialize. You agree that editorializing damages credibility for a reporter. You disagree, however, with my calling the work the Grok is currently doing as an attempt to report on news. More peculiar is that you don’t seem to want that title, and in fact go as far as to say that you don’t think it fits.
No, I really don't want that title, nor am I striving for it (re: reporter). As Doug said in his comment "Er, and all I wanted to do was write stuff sometimes..." - me too. I do want to be correct with my facts - one can quibble about commentary and opinions, but facts are facts. But it will be mixed in with commentary.
It is not that we do not wish to be seen as credible; we just have a difference of opinion on how to present "news" with commentary.
And that, right from the get-go, is not us. While we do consider ourselves "citizen journalists", it is the commentary part that drives us.
Philosophically, I don’t draw lines between online blogs and “mainstream” media.
And I guess that's where the discussion starts. I have felt that there is a difference - a complementary one if done right. My point earlier, however, is that many do (and not always in a positive manner).
The Grok comments on stories in other papers, true, but it is also doing independent coverage of local stories. With my editorials, I do the same, and I have in the past been very critical of some Citizen pieces, especially with editorials in the Winnisquam Echo. I only suggest that there is a better way to present original content to your readers that will lend your news product more credibility. Why disagree?
We are doing both and we do like doing the "independant coverage" in addition to the commentary. I guess part of it is that we look at the independant coverage as ancillary to what we do - for you folks, it is primary. All a matter of degree and focus. If you want straight news, go to Dale's new site - that seems to be what he is promising - news with no commentary. That's not us.
Oh, and I can promise you that I have never once pictured you or Doug blogging in your "underware."
Sigh....yes, both you and Mike have caught me in a misspelling - too much "software" and "hardware" on the brain....it should have been "underwear". Thanks for holding me accountable for proper word choice and spelling!
By the way, I am not writing as editor, but as a private citizen that happens to manage three papers.
Alec O’Meara
It matters not to us what role you are using when you write when at the 'Grok - you're always welcome !
Hey, what about doing more on this as a topic on Meet The New Press - game for it?
Also, good luck rookie - in the Triathalon tomorrow and Sunday!
