Wednesday, May 2, 2007

B1: "Area teens learn about life’s pitfalls"

In the annual feature on Teen Maze, Derek Meurer talks with the organizer at length and describes what it's about. What's missing is any reaction from the customers about why they come, what they think of it, or whether it's effective. It's always looked to me like a colossal exercise in preaching to the converted. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

7 comments:

courierfriend said...

Here's what's tough. If the Courier runs a story about an event after it's over -- thus getting in quotes from the customers, readers are upset because they didn't know about the event ahead of time (running stuff in the calendar just doesn't cut it for these folks). However, if the Courier runs a story about an event soon enough so that readers can participate if they want to, readers are upset because they can't hear from the customers. And unfortunately, with space left tight because of small news-to-advertising ratios, the Courier can't run more than one story on an event.

Steven Ayres said...

I thought I'd missed something, so I went back to the story, which tells me that the event happened last week. So it appears the article falls down on both your counts -- too late to please the promoters, not enough meat to serve the reader. What say you?

leftturnclyde said...

Courierfriend's post seems to be defending the courier from a charge that no one has made.

Judgeing from the picture there were at least some kids milling about to get some quotes from and I think Steven may well be right about the preaching to the converted angle .What Stevens looking for here (I think)is a little more In depth reporting on this thing. I Agree.

courierfriend said...

I say, touche. I guess I got carried away, a little. It's just that there sometimes is more to the way a reporter covers a story than it appears when it ends up in the paper.

Steven Ayres said...

=> there sometimes is more to the way a reporter covers a story than it appears

I'm sure that's more true than not, but it's immaterial, really. It's the editor's responsibility to ensure that this unevenness doesn't impair the product's value to the customer -- the reader. That's why every story should have multiple sets of eyes on it before it goes to press.

Another thought: The downside of a byline is that the writer takes the blame for everyone else's mistakes as well as her/his own.

coyoteradiotheater said...

Actually, the Courier often runs man on the street reaction to an event, when they cover it after the fact. What they don't run is . . . did it work, almost like a no holds barred theatre review, which they are also loathe to do.

Becausein either case, there is the chance that this year's event didn'tcome off well, which imperils next year's event in the eyes of the event runners and the eyes of the complicit news source.

Remember, when you're the only newspaper in town, you've got to be everyone' friend.

leftturnclyde said...

Vootie coyote radio I say Vootie