From the Editor

This question and answer ran in Saturday's Since You Asked column, but since we continue to get questions about the disappearance of the Mail Tribune forums and the story comments, here it is again:

My question is simple: What happened to the Mail Tribune's (online) forums? — M.I., Medford

Your question is simple, M.I., but alas, the answer is not.

First, we posted notices online and in the newspaper that the forums would be disappearing. That news caused joyous dancing in the streets from some quarters and ominous muttering about censorship from others.

So here's the deal: The Mail Tribune's online forums will go on hiatus for about a month and half while a new forum system is added to our Web site. When that new forum is activated, it will be moderated — in other words, before comments are posted, someone will look at them to ensure they are appropriate.

Aha, some will say, there's the censorship! Not so, Chuckie, unless you define censorship as the removal of obscene references, personal attacks on private figures, incessant sniping between forum users and a general lack of verbal hygiene.

The old forum system provided a mechanism for responding at the end of stories as well as a way to start a forum topic independent of stories.

It was monitored through user complaints. In other words, if a user spotted a comment that crossed the line, he or she could click on a complaint link and let us know something was amiss. We would check it out and if we agreed it crossed the line, we would remove it.

Well, let's just say that proved to be a big job. We received dozens of complaints daily, thousands over the course of a year. A lot of the complaints were about inappropriate or obscene comments, which would appear despite an obscenity screen (use a $ in place of an S and let your mind run wild.)

But the bigger headache involved forum users attacking each other. It seems there are a certain number of people out there who have a very low threshold for dissent. So if someone disagreed with them on a topic, a flaming response would ensue. If the second party was prone to flaming as well, a conflagration would break out. And we have pitifully few cyber firefighters at the worldwide headquarters of www.mailtribune.com.

As with many things in life, it only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. The idea of a community forum where people can engage in civilized discussions about issues is appealing. And there were many users on our forums who tried to do that. But there were an unfortunate number of users who seemed ever ready to go on the attack.

The new moderated forum probably won't solve that problem entirely. But it should be a step in the right direction.

We've had a number of concerns raised by readers over our coverage of the investigation into Ashland resident James Auchincloss' alleged possession of child pornography. Auchincloss, the half-brother of the late Jackie Kennedy-Onassis, has not been charged, but several stories have been published based on information compiled by police after they served search warrants. Acquaintances of Auchincloss have complained that it's unfair to publish the information before he has even been charged. Some of that conversation has occurred in the Media Critics group of  Rogue Current, our social networking site. Here's the comment I posted there in response to questions:

I would say the No. 1 reason we ran the Auchincloss story (or run any stories, for that matter) is that it was newsworthy. A guy who got arrested a week or so ago after allegedly robbing a bank was still legally innocent, but his picture ends up in the paper. Our job is not the same as prosecutors or defense attys -- our job is to get interesting, newsworthy information out to readers. Mr. Auchincloss' connection to the Kennedys does not make him guilty, but it does make him more newsworthy, thus the national coverage of this story.

Of course, each case has to be considered on its own merits. In this case, three things tipped the scale toward publishing the story:

1. The evidence was overwhelming -- it was almost impossible to read the eyewitness statements, as well as comments they made in interviews with our reporter, and review the evidence seized by police and not reach the conclusion that a crime had been committed. Mr. Auchincloss offered no protests that the accusations were false and, in fact, we have still not heard any denials from him. We have had a number of complaints from his friends, but none from him.

2.  We were concerned, apparently moreso than the police, about reports that Mr. Auchincloss and another man being investigated had taken photos of local children. Those children were clothed and in public settings, but how should a parent feel about knowing the photos were taken at all, given the circumstances?

3. The evidence has been in police hands for 7-8 months and still no action. They say they are overwhelmed by the work load -- maybe this is evidence that local police and prosecutors should shift their priorities. In any case, it's not something that can be swept under the rug at this point.

I feel comfortable with our coverage. Child abuse in various forms -- and child pornography is certainly child abuse -- is rampant in this country, as well as in our local communities. When it occurs in unexpected corners, it's even more important to get the word out.

We get a rather steady stream of criticism for publishing bad news. Well, brace for more.

On the heels of last week's announcement that the state budget shortfall is not quite as bad as feared, Gov. Ted Kulongoski paid the Mail Tribune a visit Wednesday as part of a push to create a program that he hopes would produce 12,000 jobs this summer. (Click here for story on the program.)

That was the good news -- at least it seems to us that it's better to pay 12,000 people to work instead of just giving them unemployment checks. But the bad news came in his other comments -- specifically that the current budget situation, as dire as it is, may very well be the high water mark for this year. In other words, he predicted it will get worse before it gets better and that the cuts being imposed on state programs and schools will increase in severity as future revenue forecasts come in.

Trust me, we would rather publish good news. But here's a warning that more storm clouds are gathering on the horizon.

I posted this on the roguecurrent.com Media Critics group page a bit ago:

We're getting some unhappy callers about our Neo-Nazi coverage in today's MT (4/22). Concerns expressed about a variety of things, biggest was that the posed photo glamorized the three (ahem) gentlemen. Not as much concern about the story, which detailed their criminal pasts and had comments from several sources opposed to their efforts, but some readers thought it should have been played on B1 or inside somewhere, not on the front page.

We discussed the potential for that reaction yesterday and tried to make sure the story did not come off as a feature about some local guys in a community group. I think the posed photo was problematic, but also think it made a strong statement about who these guys are.

I've told the callers I've talked to that I think an important part of our job is to shine light into the dark corners of the community. Putting the story on Page 10 doesn't make it go away, it only helps us ignore it by keeping it in the shadows.

By the way, the Neo-Nazis didn't like it either. Turns out we are part of the left-wing Jewish conspiracy.

Coverage of the recent Tea Party rallies provided another obstacle course for the media to navigate. I first heard about the event in the Media Critics section of roguecurrent.com, where one of the posters said he'd be surprised if the media would cover the event. I told the poster we were interested in covering it and that if he could put us in touch with organizers, we would do just that. He did and we did, running a front page story the day before the event and a front page story the day after, plus stories, photos and videos on mailtribune.com.

The first comment we got back from the advance story was that we were obviously biased against the event. Huh? OK, I admit I was confused. Turns out that an editor (me) changed the words "national politicians" into "President Barack Obama and Congress." I thought I was making the story clearer, because I had seen other coverage (yes, even on Fox News) that showed the message was aimed at the White House and Congress. I was wrong, though, to make that assumption, as I told the woman whose paraphrased words (not direct quotes) I had changed. An innocent mistake on my part, but in her view part of the media conspiracy to distort the news.

Turns out the organizers were making a very concerted effort to portray this as a non-partisan event, even if most of the creators and participants were Republican and/or conservative (Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Fox News, etc.) I had unknowingly stepped in the middle of that.

With that auspicious start, we set off to cover the event. Our reporter, Damian Mann, was greeted with numerous comments or questions about his impartiality. He did his job, covered the story in a very straight-forward manner and, in the end, received compliments from some of the organizers and participants. He did say, however, that he got some criticism from non-conservatives that the coverage was "excessive." Can't keep everybody happy.

I clearly made a mistake in changing the wording in Damian's story. Even if I didn't really believe this was a strictly non-partisan effort, a sentiment we expressed in an editorial on Wednesday, my editing changed the comments made by the event supporter, even if they were only paraphrased comments.  Lesson learned.

But as to the comments that it was an evidence of biased coverage, I say not guilty. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.