Before I go into a rather random set of critiques, I want to clarify the role of the public editor because a commenter was confused by something in my last column.

Despite the term “editor,” I do not have any role in actually altering content in the paper. While I may send critical emails and write columns to urge them to take corrective action, I am not a staff member.

My role, as I’ve understood it, is to act as a watchdog of the paper and an advocate for readers. That latter part, however, is difficult when no one bothers to raise flags my way. I can certainly survey the paper day-to-day, but I want to hear more from readers as to what they want to see change in this paper or what they’re dissatisfied with. So, please, email me with concerns at [email protected].

Opinion still struggling

Two weeks ago, I noticed some serious issues with both news and opinion. While news still has some problems, it is certainly getting back on the right track as far as daily news is concerned.

However, I was not as happy with opinion.

One of my biggest issues over the last few weeks has been that of needlessly sourcing from other media sources. I mentioned it two weeks ago in this column and said to rely on primary sources or not cite sources when something is independently verifiable.

Then I saw the Editorial Board’s piece on Capitol Police Chief David Erwin’s enforcement of protesting regulations. Not only did the board cite other sources for information it could have easily verified independently, but it cited The Progressive, which was relying on a “citizens news cooperative” that comprises a few of the protesters, as a news source.

The last straw came in a Monday column by John Waters. In discussing a Public Policy Polling poll of the Romney-Obama race, the results were cited through a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story on the poll. The story itself linked to the actual results.

The biggest problem? The opinion article got it wrong, saying Obama had a six-point lead. The poll measured a seven-point lead. It should be noted that while the writer should have caught that error, the editors should have sourced the statement to the poll itself. Then they likely would have caught that error.

This sort of sloppiness was not repeated on Tuesday or Wednesday, thankfully, but the opinion page needs to get its ducks in a row on other matters as well. Not only should staff members be making sure writers aren’t stopping the flow of the column with unnecessary cites, they also need to make sure their writing is compelling and is engaging the audience with a wide range of viewpoints. So far, they’ve struggled with this.

As long as the opinion editors instill the confidence in some of the writers to craft columns with their natural voice and prompt discussion among writers, the section can improve. But they’ve got a way to go.

Don’t feed the trolls, but don’t starve the public

One rule that’s occasionally flickered in The Badger Herald is writers cannot comment on their own pieces. For reporters, this makes perfect sense. They cannot expose their biases, and engaging commenters tends to draw that out.

But the same rule doesn’t make sense for opinion writers and columnists. These people are engaging the public and trying to start a discussion, so prohibiting them from responding to rebuttals makes little sense in the way of transparency and open discussion.
Editor-in-Chief Ryan Rainey has broken that rule a few times in the last few weeks, commenting on his own article regarding journalism schools. Rainey told me he’s experimenting with the commenters, seeing if he can prompt discussion without letting the “trolls” get out of control.

The intent is admirable, but the action is hypocritical. While he says he’s mature enough to deal with the commenters, he needs to also provide columnists with a way of responding to their detractors, within reason. Editors need to moderate comments to ensure opinion writers don’t go off on a limb (racist comments, for example), but allowing the columnists to comment will give them the confidence to confront counterarguments and participate in the public forum.

A rich history in three bullets?

Monday’s edition of the paper discussed a conviction related to the 2011 Mifflin Street Block Party and added a graphic to describe it. Unfortunately, the party’s 43-year history was scaled down to include three highlights between 1996 and today: the riots of 1996, the compromise between the mayor and students in 2005 and last year’s events.

Not only was it small, but it was low-res and, most importantly, got a fact wrong. Madison spent about $195,000 on last year’s enforcement, not $80,000. That was the total dollar amount of the citations. And while it certainly is difficult for outsiders, the paper spelled former Mayor Dave Cieslewicz’s name wrong.

Managing Editor Taylor Nye, who was working that night, took blame for the error. She crafted the graphic because “Multimedia no longer knows” how to create them and design was too busy.

It’s an admirable effort to help out other sections, but the facts need to be right and the timeline needs to be more detailed. As I said before about another graphic, if you’re not sure, don’t run it.

Explaining versus rehashing

SAFECab has always been popular among University of Wisconsin students, even if it hasn’t always been efficient. The Herald has, up to this point, been very good about keeping up on developments regarding the replacement or restoration of the program.

But last week, the paper tried in vain to explain all the different changes in transit across the city. It was, according to Editor- at-Large Pam Selman, supposed to be a what is referred to as an “explainer” – a background story that attempts to break down every element of a story to give readers better context.

But there was no better context – just a rehash of everything that’s happened up to this point. Plus, the headline was “SAFECab Could Come Back,” which misled the audience into thinking there had been some new development.

It’s admirable News Editor Katie Caron and Selman wanted to get the in-depth side of news moving, but Caron admitted she stopped at 500 words because of a word limit for design purposes. She actually had more content that fleshed out the changes to Madison-area transit in greater detail, making it a true news “explainer.” Next time, Caron would be better served by holding off on the story until news can plan for a piece that size – she said she’ll plan on this in the future.

What’s more, Caron said there are at least two in-depths that are in the works and seem to be coming through. Considering  the explanatory and investigative sides of journalism are what make papers ring, I hope the paper realizes the importance of quality in-depth pieces. It should hold off until it feels comfortable with what it has written and how it is to be presented.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a reporter for WisPolitics.com. He was the former editor-in-chief of The Badger Herald from 2009-2010.