|
|
|
His bosses at the Sacramento Bee have ordered Dan Weintraub to submit his California Insider blog items to a high-level editor before posting. Tony Marcano, a former LAT editor who is the Bee's ombudsman, says low in a piece today that it grew out of complaints by the Legislature's Latino Caucus. The members objected to Weintraub posting that Cruz Bustamante would never have been Speaker of the Assembly, or elected Light Governor, if his name was Charles Bustmont.
Matt Welch and Mickey Kaus both have good posts on how the Bee's directive could chill Weintraub's freshness and independence, and how journalistically wrong it would be to cave to the caucus. We don't know if anyone has caved, based on Marcano's piece. Weintraub has retracted nothing, and so far as we know, his content has not been touched. But if the Bee has toned down Weintraub, the paper should be embarrassed.
He's their opinion columnist, and his blog -- by design -- is more analysis and personality than it is factual reporting. Some readers may accept his insights as truth, but many don't. It's informative anyway. The point of a blog is personal insights, and as Kaus points out, if the Bee wants to broaden the spectrum of takes, it can add more bloggers. The paper chose to make the brand "Dan Weintraub" as opposed to a selection of Bee staffers (which might have been more informative).
Whether the Bee actually has "edited" Weintraub in the sense of revising his take or altering his words is an unknown. Weintraub posts as a Bee staffer, as part of his day job, so the editors may just want the same control (or cover-their-ass protection) they have over everything else the Bee publishes. Nothing runs in a major newspaper without some editor reading it, and thus tacitly okaying it, including Weintraub's print columns. Opinion articles can spew lies but they are edited (occasionally butchered) for length and always read for style, spelling and potential libel. That sort of editing doesn't imply editorial censorship to me, even if an editor challenges fuzzy thinking and says, "Danny, do you really mean to say this?" It depends on whether Weintraub gets to say what he wants to say.
I'm pro editor and have yet to meet the journalist, myself included, who wouldn't benefit from a good collaborative editor. Even so, I think the Bee erred. Spontaneity may be overrated in some bloggers hands -- I prefer thought-out posts -- but quickness to break or react to news is part of why Weintraub and the Bee have drawn so much positive attention. [Plus he represents the Bee almost daily on TV and radio, with no editor. How is a blog, with far fewer consumers, any different?] If the paper wants a blog, it should sign on for the whole deal. Let him post what he wants when he wants, and make sure the readers all know that's the arrangement. Dan's a pro and in the unlikely event he libels somebody or embarrasses the Bee, it can be fixed in the next post.
Update: The Bee's editorial board, which includes Weintraub, has begun a group blog to discuss the questions to be asked at this week's recall candidates debate. Interesting disclaimer: "The views expressed here are those of individual writers, not of the editorial board as a whole."
(Note: When I first posted this the time stamp said 5:25 p.m., which was when I recorded a draft. Then I went off to eat, play with the new kitten etc. It was not posted until about 8 p.m., so I've edited the time below. Edited 11 p.m.)
If it's within their frame, it's within their rights. With the presence of an editor, however, it ceases to be a blog, and becomes a mere column. The key ingredient distinguishing blog from column is the absence of an editor's fingerprints.
Posted by: joseph at September 22, 2003 02:03 PMMy eye was caught by your comment that you prefer thought-out posts. Do you write your copy, edit, etc., then paste to post?
Posted by: David Crawley at September 22, 2003 02:16 PMDavid, I don't write elsewhere and paste in, I always write in the Movable Type entry form. But otherwise it varies. Maybe a third to half of posts are first takes that go directly to the blog. Some I start, then sit on, and come back to finish. Most posts, probably, I reword and edit anywhere from a little to a lot before putting them up. Mine are not stream of consciousness diary entries. I admire the writers that works for, but it doesn't for me.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at September 22, 2003 05:29 PMAs a former Bee writer, I know that the McClatchy management is ultra-sensitive to any hint of discrimination whether it be race, age or gender. The important thing in this situation is that the complaint came from the Latino caucus. So UP go the ears on the editorial board. While admirable in its intent, this knee-jerk reaction inhibits the free transmission of ideas and puts a crimp on journalism. I, too, believe the old saying, "everyone needs an editor" but a blog (why does that word turn me off?) is a blog and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Dick Tracy at September 26, 2003 08:50 AM
of LA Observed
I was surprised several times by the edgy quality of Dan's commentary. It revealed him more than any number of straight hard news pieces or even political features could. I began reading him recently with more attention to any apparent biases that might peek out - or be straight up, as they occasionally are - and I delighted in reading stuff that was hard-edged about the governor and then about his foes. He was revealing himself as a true journalist, someone who calls his or her shots the same way whether he's goring someone else's ox or his own. That flavor is rare and precious in modern journalism. Someone has to step on it - they always do. Nothing good lasts long. In this age, it lasts even more briefly this year than it did a year or two ago. The human voice is the most dangerous weapon on earth and at every moment of the day it is terrifying someone. The fact that Dan Weintraub could speak his own mind in a major paper like the Bee without some reliable editor stepping on it is the next thing to anarchy in the halls of power. It is so sad that we are Americans and yet are so afraid of freedom.
Posted by: Joe Shea at September 21, 2003 10:21 PM