A good question from a reader

Question for Carl Weiser, editor of this blog (in all sincerity)...

Do you consider the journalistic standards your writers (Enquirer staffers listed on the page) adhere to in this blog to be the same as if they were publishing in the paper?

I think that might be what is causing some of the confusion/hostility by the other blog participants.

I am assuming that as a "blog," you see it as a less formal, looser, general airing of issues that do not have to necessarily pass the same journalistic stabdards as actually publishing in the paper.

What say you?

Anonymous:

It's a good question. In a lot of ways, we're still figuring out the answer to it.

Here are the differences.

Overall, you put it pretty well: one of the main ways the blog differs from the paper is that it is less formal and looser. The reporters can't opine, but they can perhaps add a little more humor, a little more attitude than they could in the paper.

CONTENT: Another way it differs is that the news threshhold is lower. Our audience on the blog is, presumably, political junkies. What's news to them is different than what's news to the general daily audience of 200,000 readers for the Enquirer paper. There are a number of items on the blog that never make it into the paper because a general audience would have no interest.

SPACE: The blog also allows us to post primary documents or links to documents or databases. There's no room in the paper to run the full list of donors to a congressional campaign, but we can link right to that on the blog. There's no room in the paper to run a full transcript of a TV show appearance or a Congressional Record excerpt - but we can on the blog.

INTERACTIVITY: Sometimes by posting the primary document - the press release, the study, the database - we learn a lot from our readers. They sort our numbers, find interesting names, alert us to Cincinnati angles on stuff we didn't know about. That's wonderful, and we really appreciate it.

STANDARDS: As for the standards, I'd say this. For the blog entries written by the reporters, the standards are essentially the same - we try to get both sides, we don't opine, we don't use anonymous sources. I try to make sure everything is spelled right, that titles are correct, that everything - everything - is accurate.

That's not true, of course, for the comments. There, I pretty much allow almost anything unless it's nonsensical, obscene, racist, or an unwarranted personal attack. I really value the entertaining, insightful, and occasionally feisty comments that spring from the community that has developed around this blog.


Carl Weiser, government/public affairs editor
cweiser@enquirer.com