2009.11.05
Why we didn't run precinct charts in the paper
About a half dozen readers have called or e-mailed the past couple of days to ask why we didn't run precinct charts detailing this week's election results in Wednesday's newspaper. We decided not to publish those charts this year for a few reasons:
- We felt like we could make better use of the space they require (nearly two full pages) with more stories and photos;
- The time it takes to compile the charts often causes us to miss our newsroom deadline. And if we miss our deadline that starts a chain reaction that ends with readers getting their papers late;
- The information is available on the state board of elections Web site.
Let me know if you missed having the charts in print. There's an election every year in Virginia and I know the question will come up again.
Please know that not all your readers have access to a computer and/or website to check the government listing. The other two reasons given are quite lame. Perhaps this downward trend in "factual" reporting is leading to the downward trend in circulation among U.S. newspapers as well? Our newspapers are now like the government -- they know best what their constituents should have, and will force on their constituents what they want them to read. If you are truly sensitive to your readers (customers), then you will reinstate the precinct vote tallies. Would rather get a newspaper late, than receive one on time without the information we are looking for. Thanks for listening.
Comment by Edward Bennett — November 6, 2009 @ 10:08 am
I looked for the charts in Wednesday's paper, then thought for sure they would be in yesterday's. Maybe I am the only one, but I did miss them this year. Ok, so it is available on the computer; lots of stuff is on-line, but I'd rather have it in front of me as I am reading the paper. By refering folks to checking out data on the internet, you are just further propogating the legions that are abandoning newspapers to seek out news on-line.
Comment by Sam Oakey — November 6, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Sam and Edward,
Thanks for the comments. I heard from another reader by phone today saying basically the same thing. All total, I've heard from 10 readers asking us to publish the charts next November.
Michael
Comment by Michael Stowe — November 9, 2009 @ 5:54 pm