Dec 16, 2007 - 04:08:22 CST
No one likes being told what to do. When I ask my 11-year-old son to take out the trash, it's as if I am one of the meanest ogres to walk the face of the earth. How dare I ask him to stop contorting his thumbs and a few fingers on his Game Boy Advance and complete a one-minute chore?Setting a reasonable curfew for a 17-year-old high school junior is cruel and unusual punishment, at least in the eyes of the teen being told what time to be home.
And suggesting ever-so-gently that a co-worker needs an attitude adjustment so that the entire group doesn't have to suffer is sometimes construed as out of line and inappropriate.
I must confess that being told what to do isn't something I personally relish. It is necessary, however, because from time to time I am wrong. My wife might even suggest the words "time to time" don't adequately reflect the error of my ways.
Last week I was told in several e-mails and a phone call, all from the same individual, in the sternest of language a father might use with a son, the newspaper's coverage of the "Simle Middle School incident" must come to an end.
The Simle incident, as you likely recall, included a couple of stories, an editorial and numerous online reader comments about a teacher who showed a video in a class that some found objectionable. The teacher was disciplined.
The e-mailer, a former teacher, pointed out a belief that "cyber-morons" had made "inflammatory comments."
It was strongly suggested that the newspaper should keep its nose out of "school-related business regarding pupils and teachers unless it was something absolutely disastrous."
It seemed a classic case of someone wanting to kill the messenger. The newspaper would be held responsible, the complainer suggested, if anything negative happened to the teacher.
So, like any son being dressed down by a dad who the youngster clearly believed didn't understand the significantly wrong-headed instruction being offered, my first impulse was to rebel and speak my mind in a retaliatory e-mail.
That would have been a mistake, I realized, so I resisted that ever-so-strong temptation. I did, however, respond as gently as I knew how:
"I hope we can agree to disagree," I suggested. I thanked the individual for the input and ended with this: "I wish you all the best."
I really did mean it; it wasn't a flippant comment.
But the issue at hand was non-negotiable with this online reader, and my responsive comments seemed to anger him even more.
His position was somewhat surprising, as earlier in the day another reader showered appreciation our way, impressed with the sensitive way in which the Tribune had handled the story.
Different people, different perspectives.
An old saw never seems more appropriate: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The complaint, however, led me to reflect on a reoccurring journalistic sin - overkill. It is something the media is sometimes guilty of, especially in the court of public opinion.
Still, it seemed ludicrous that the Tribune was irresponsible in its coverage on this specific story, even though media groups need as much self-reflection as the next guy (agency, organization, individual, etc.).
Some stories seem to take on a life of their own, but that really can't happen without the nurturing of a reporter, an editor or a radio talk show host or television news show interviewer, sometimes brought about by a personal agenda.
One national story that comes to mind is Drew Peterson. His wife, Stacy, vanished from their home in late October, and the husband is a suspect. I've learned more than I even care to know about Drew Peterson, mostly from the Today's Show's Matt Lauer, who for a period of time seemed obsessed with daily "exclusives" and "updates." It was enough overkill to drive me to another channel and different morning show.
Columnist Mona Charen also made a compelling case in a column last week titled "Stop glorifying murderers." Her point was simple: Those who go on shooting rampages at universities, high schools, hospitals and government agencies, and even those who strap explosives to their bodies (real or fake), act out, in part, in an effort to seek fame.
Does the media aid their objective - and set a bad precedent for others seeking attention - by providing too much coverage?
It is a distinct possibility.
As journalists, we need to report the news without fear or favor. But we also need to be sensitive to inappropriate, or in some cases too much, coverage of the news.
(You can reach editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@;bismarcktribune.com and go to http:/ /www.bismarcktribune.com/blog/?w=thepaper&e_id=2671/ to read his blog.)
Too Tame wrote on Dec 16, 2007 6:10 PM:
Support you wrote on Dec 16, 2007 8:55 AM:
Lost wrote on Dec 16, 2007 8:38 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.