RSS Feed
April 17th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda READERS’ EDITOR
Having your say in, on and about your newspapers … “The common thread that links these complaints is, for me, a golden one: ownership.” Photo: Paul Harris
Some interesting facts about the weekday Herald’s readership: 51 per cent are online only; 36 per cent are print only; 13 per cent are a bit of both. One thing that keeps you all on the same page, though, is your deep and abiding keenness to have your say in, on and about your newspapers. When you cannot – your letter to the editor is not published, your online comment is rejected, or comments are not open on the story you are interested in – there is much disgruntlement.
”To me the readers’ comments are vitally important, unless, of course, readers are expected to just read the paper and not think about what they are reading,” said one online reader. Another took that argument a little further: ”The comments covering the leadership debate were a great insight into the thoughts of the nation. Or so I thought. By allowing comments on some topics and not on others [it] suggests the SMH is swaying the perception of what people actually think.”
But what is worse? Not being able to comment, or watching your gems disappear in front of your eyes? ”I’ve been following the articles on the HSU/Thomson/Williamson, and have enjoyed reading the comments. On going back to today’s article a short time later, I note that many have been removed. Is this normal practice? I have not encountered this phenomenon before. It went from 40 to 27, then 24. Then it was shown as 28, and then immediately showed 24 again.”
A woman – and here is another interesting snippet: 45 per cent of smh.com.au’s audience between 6pm and 9pm is female – pondered a gender bias: ”It certainly seems that all the men’s comments keep on getting posted but few women. I may be one of the few women to comment on political matters, but it shouldn’t be so hard.”
Another woman didn’t ponder about bias, she thundered: ”I wish to complain about the lack of female representation in today’s letters page in response to this week’s QA program on the ABC, on which Cardinal George Pell and Professor Richard Dawkins were the panelists. There were six letters published … exclusively from male contributors. I find it difficult to believe that there were absolutely no contributions from women that were worthy of publishing … Your letters editors (even worse – aren’t they currently women?) ought to try harder to promote gender balance, especially on topics where it’s of particular significance.”
A gentleman wanted right-of-reply to a letter responding to his published letter: ”It is my name that suffers when such pap is published. When a contributor like me is prepared to stand up and make a point we don’t fear being taken down by good argument, but we have no chance if the editors [don’t get] the point.”
The common thread that links these complaints is, for me, a golden one: ownership. By buying a paper or going online, readers are expressing loyalty, placing trust in their newspaper. So when it lets them down, they fall hard.
Most accept glitches in technology (as in the case of the disappearing comments mentioned earlier) with good grace but when journalists are involved they are less forgiving – which makes it a tad difficult, because journalists produce the paper and the online content.
So, to the good news first – and from a non-journalist: the general manager of online news says at smh.com.au, more moderators have been added, ”effectively doubling our approved comments and stories with comments turned on”. In the next couple of months, he says, technology will be introduced which will allow the site to turn on even more. And my online colleagues guarantee that the selection of stories open for comment is neither political nor biased. So any problems come down to those two so-very-modern factors: technology and staffing.
Now to the perennial torment of readers: letters to the editor. The selection process is, by its nature, subjective: one person on a given day picking this letter over that. Each editor has a unique sense of humour, news judgment and experience. What one might reject, another would pounce on with glee. When one might allow right of reply if the misunderstanding was egregious, another might not. And on certain topics (scientific, medical, etc) expertise is considered, and gender balance too, although only if they contribute meaningfully to the debate.
Whoever is in charge of the page has certain goals: to keep it bright, interesting, entertaining and topical; to introduce new names with fresh ideas as often as possible; to reflect the many and varied views submitted, avoiding personal attacks and barbs.
Dissatisfaction with letters editors is as old and as constant as when Methuselah’s local newsletter made the rounds, and will still be bubbling when I go to that great iPad in the sky. Be assured, though, all criticism is passed on.
[email protected]; www.smh.com.au/readers-ed
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
