From the Editor's Desk

I woke up to a neighbor knocking on my bedroom window really early this morning, which is never a great way to get out of bed. It got worse when I looked out the window and Brandon yelled: “fire!”

The fire wasn’t at my home, but had consumed two buildings on a property just behind where I live in Bremerton. My neighbors and I watched the huge orange glow rise and crackle from my backyard for a few minutes just before 1 a.m., worried that the blaze would catch on trees that separate the properties and come at us.

The flames didn’t head our way, thanks to the efforts of CKF&R and Bremerton Fire, though sadly a few of my neighbors were displaced from their home. Everyone escaped, but two homes are now destroyed and I feel for the folks who I’d see around the neighborhood. Most of my other neighbors were out rubber-necking in the middle of the night, and we’d take a minute to chat and share when we’d woken up or just shake our heads at the destruction. I even met a few folks who are new to the area, though it wasn’t the circumstance I had expected to do so.

After getting over the initial shock I managed to put on my journalist hat and do a little reporting/videography with Sun photographer Larry Steagall, who even beat me to the scene (Larry’s great like that). It was an odd feeling sitting there in my living room at 2:30 a.m. posting a web story, smelling smoke in the air and knowing that some flames were still being knocked down a few hundred feet away.

It was a first for me to be that close to having a news event become a personal event, and the nearest I’ve ever come to feeling threatened in my own home by fire. Knowing one of the residents who lost his home brought home to me again the personal side of this business. I don’t know when I’ll see John next, but I know I’m concerned about where he’ll go.

I walked over to Jacobson this morning in the rain to check the remains. The only person there was a fire marshal looking through debris, shockingly sparse even after the witnessing the sensational scene just a few hours earlier. The unique steady August rain and dawn on a dreary day would have been a surreal enough way to start a Tuesday. Don’t think I’ll forget this one for awhile.

—David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Just more than a month ago, I wrote about our 75th anniversary and shared what that felt like in the newsroom. It was a look back at where we began, and the thread that still runs deep here on Fifth Street.

Today I’m writing with the same intention of opening the door to the Sun’s psyche, if slightly differently. I also hope to bring you in on the discussion of a question always present in a newsroom: what’s next?

Call this part two of that 75th anniversary column.

I’m asked often about our future, which is no surprise in a region that’s seen a major metro newspaper go online-only, is filled with tech companies, and has an audience that has heard too often our industry’s “bad news” — declining circulation, laid-off staff, loss of trust in traditional news sources. With that backdrop, where we’re headed is a question we ask ourselves internally during the cycle of annual planning, both as the Sun and as a part of the E.W. Scripps company.

There’s also the future of our industry to contemplate, a complex question in a time when change is more prevalent than ever at newspapers and websites competing to stay relevant.

The easy answer is yes, there is a future for the Sun and for journalism. The tougher follow-up question is what that will look like, what growing pains we’ll go through, what skills our journalists will need, what new options readers and advertisers will demand, and whether the revelation that solves the riddle will be posted to Facebook or Twitter first.

I’m kidding on that last one, but those social media tools are a real part of our present and important to our future. How to harness new software or products to share the news and recruit talent that uses them is something we’re seeking, both in this newsroom and in collaboration with our 14 sister newspapers in the Scripps chain. (Newspapers that, incidentally, are using Facebook now to explore the issue if you’d like to join, at facebook.com/futureofnews.)

One step in finding that answer is Sunday’s front-page story package, our contribution to the media’s attempt to explain how changes in information consumption shapes what we do. The exercise helps explain a trend to readers, but also helps our newsroom think through the challenge.

The lead story, by reporter Derek Sheppard, looks at how mobile devices have changed communication habits. That’s as broad as how much easier it is to talk with one another, something not unique to Kitsap County, and can be as narrow as how that technology delivers kitsapsun.com in a way not even thought of four years ago.

When we review readership numbers, mobile-phone use — whether on the iPhone, Blackberry, Android or other phone through m.kitsapsun.com — has become the consistent leader for growth. With Kindle and iPad popularity growing, smartphones may not hold that lead for much longer. Looking at where readers fit us into busy and technology-soaked lives is in part what prompted Sheppard’s inquiry, and it’s why we are spending resources to find out how we serve our community through those platforms while still putting energy into a printed newspaper.

Another piece in today’s edition is a profile of Publicola, a Seattle website started 18 months ago. We examined the niche political site to offer a specific look at an online-only publication staffed by journalists with deep roots — who, not incidentally, walked away from paying gigs to experiment with digital-only publishing. Other attempts have been made in the Pacific Northwest, most notably with seattlepi.com, but Publicola offers an interesting angle on the story because it’s evolved a niche news strategy and business plan swiftly — with a flexibility that may be common in media for the foreseeable future.

There is some hope for journalism in that start-up, just like the encouragement I see when the Sun’s mobile and online readership builds on our print reputation. Or when our staff adapts to new technology, or when new readers find us through Facebook or a mobile site. As I wrote in July, there’s also optimism when people simply ask how the Sun is doing these days.

Technology, as we’re seeing with niche websites and social media hubs, doesn’t diminish the interest folks still have in local news — and I believe the advances can make that community more inclusive. For example, visit a site that specifically serves tomato growers, or fly-fishermen, or Kitsap County prep football, or, I have to mention, our comment threads on stories. None of that existed not long ago. People are in dialogue more specifically, but we’re still a relevant part of that.
There are more entry points to our newsroom now, more ways for us to be part of a conversation that was for decades relegated to the Opinion page or your breakfast table, and more ways for readers to be informed or involved. There are success stories coming from start-up news organizations that we watch, new delivery devices to make reading convenient, and nonmedia digital companies we can learn from or partner with.

Answering the questions related to those innovations and other trends we see in the business world — “Who pays for this stuff?” chief among them, of course — is the part of the discussion we’re knee-deep in. It’s also the part I’m inviting you to participate in.

— David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Head over here to read the whole thread, but in a reply to a reader today I recast our argument and background behind editorial board endorsements. It’s always worth a review this time of year.

dnelson writes:

in response to heybooboo:

Why must newspapers feel compelled to endorse certain candidates? This practice has always seemed wrong to me. The only benefit to those readers who can think independently is that it helps determine what the newspaper’s bias is in terms of which (and how) certain stories are covered. JMHO

Just a short response to clarify how the process works, I’m glad you asked about that.

The editorial board is independent of what stories are assigned, so any “bias” should reflect on the board as a whole, not our reporters. There are only two editorial board members with a connection to the newsroom (myself and the Opinion editor, who has nothing to do with assigning coverage). The other voting members are three community members and two non-newsroom employees. So our endorsements are not connected to what election stories are done or not done.

On the question of whether we should or should not endorse, we hear that argument every election cycle. We chose to do so because our board takes the time to study the issues, listen to the candidates in person and have a discussion with each other before making a choice. I think that’s valuable, and can be an informative *part* of the process voters use to decide (in particular for those voters who think independently, as heybooboo notes). It’s simply listening to another opinion: you may disagree with us, but we do spend time trying to make an informed decision and then we share that suggestion. I think that has some value in a democracy.

Also, we’ve made the interviews with candidates available on video so the whole thing is more transparent. (Not to mention giving voters another piece of information to base a decision upon.) If you don’t like who we chose, that’s fine, but I want a voter to be able to see what went into making our case.

David Nelson
Editor

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I had the day off yesterday, but business reporter Rachel Pritchett caught this Thursday tidbit and passed it along.

During a debate on funding to help community banks continue to loan money, Sen. Patty Murray spoke about American Marine’s history on Bainbridge Island. Her source? None other than the Sun. Here’s our mention in her remarks to Senate:

“An article that ran in the hometown Kitsap Sun newspaper after the collapse captured what the bank’s failure meant for local businesses and families.

“In the same article Mary Hall a local business owner talked about how a former CEO of American Marine believed in her enough to give her a loan to start up her paint company back in 1984 which still serves the community today.”

Murray’s press office said she had the editions she quoted in hand during her address. She must be a subscriber by mail. Here’s the full story we published in February.

— David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A Scripps colleague at our Knoxville newspaper, Jack Lail, posted a note on Twitter this morning that tipped the scales on me finally writing this blog post. Updating from a News University webinar by Kathy English, Lail wrote: “Unpublishing is becoming a regular request.”

Though not surprising, it’s good to know we have company. Two other articles on the topic this week caught my eye, and here’s a link to a New York Times story on how your digital history follows you due to the Internet’s incredible memory, and another from the Poynter Institute, a journalism resource based in St. Petersburg, Fla. that hosts the News University I mentioned above.

As the stories above indicate, the idea of privacy in this day and age and how a newspaper is involved with sharing information is an issue that’s emerging. At the Sun, subjects of stories who ask that an article be removed from our archives or altered have become more common in the past few months, typically because of a subject’s suspicion that potential employers have discovered stories from that person’s past. I’ve received at least three in the past two weeks, including one that was a repeated request which I thought we had adequately handled more than a year ago.

The word in the industry for such requests is “unpublish.” In a quick look around at how newspapers and websites are dealing with the issue, which the Poynter story above addresses, it’s not all that popular.

That’s the line of thinking we follow, and one that most Scripps newspaper editors are in agreement on when I’ve talked about it with those colleagues. That, however, doesn’t make it an issue that’s been put to rest. As it often does for us, the Internet, with its multiple angles and arguments and divided culture on everything, creates enough questions to ensure lively and extended discussion.

We do have a few starting points, which come from in-house discussion and some recommendations organizations like Poynter and the Associate Press Managing Editors have contributed:

— Our published stories are a historical record of what happens in this community, whether in print or online. You don’t make news “disappear,” so to speak, just like you can’t go collect all of the newspapers that hit the street. Good or bad, we report what happened and preserve that for the future. That’s why our initial response is to oppose any unpublishing.
— We correct and update the historical record. We’ve always done the traditional print correction, of course, but that’s changed some because web stories now “live” online. When corrections or updates to a story are made online, we try to indicate to readers that the original story has been corrected or amended. We’ve done this for reports on criminal charges by posting a link to a follow-up story at the top of the story that reported initial allegations or charges, when the initial story was not “incorrect,” but rather changed as the process played out. I think that’s a fair solution, and gives equal weight to the outcome of a case. That charges were made remains accurate, but we want to be able to point a reader (or a potential employer) to the most recent facts of the case if charges were dismissed or changed.
— Unpublishing should be extremely rare. Exceptions to point No. 1 will always occur, and this will be a point of contention because setting firm criteria is nearly impossible with all the ethical issues involved. At the top of my list would be requests that can cite legal or life-and-death repercussions. Other valid concerns would always be listened to and discussed, and those range from someone protecting their reputation to fear of a potential employer finding information about a person’s past. A request to unpublish without an argument other than “I don’t want it there,” which I’ve heard, isn’t likely to get far.
— We don’t change stories because of “source remorse.” That’s a phrase from an APME report, and Lail tweeted something along those lines this morning. Our stance is that sources know when they are speaking with a reporter and by giving consent in that interview, as long as the report is accurate, they’ve abandoned the right to go back and ask that the public record be changed because they don’t like how they came across.
— We aim to be transparent. I suppose that’s why I’m writing this, so that you understand what the issue is for us as it emerges, and what my thinking on the topic is. (At least my thinking for now.)

Complicating matters are things like cached searches (there are times we cannot remove a story, even if it’s no longer on our server or archive, because an engine like Google has saved a version); legal opinions (some interpretations of libel law understand a statue of limitations for news stories, which could be affected by making a change several years later); and the element of time. (I mean this in two ways: One, that a newspaper story is printed on a date and the information would have been accurate at that time, which conflicts with the web’s “real time” nature. Two, we don’t have the resources — i.e. our time — to be constantly revisiting everything for the most recent update.)

I’m sure there are more issues, and more to come. Given the widespread and sometimes incredibly open use of Facebook, etc., I’d expect them to field far more of these questions than us in the near future. Still, I’m sure it’s something we’ll continue to hear, and an answer we’ll continue to refine. But I hope that sheds some light on an ongoing issue in our newsroom.

—David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The dog ate our homework after the editorial board’s interview with three of the candidates in the county commissioner primary. We had technical difficulties archiving the video (it did work live for those who tuned in last Tuesday), and that’s my excuse for not posting the video after the meeting.

However, audio from the discussion with sitting commissioner Josh Brown and challengers Abby Burlingame and Wally Carlson did survive, and you can listen at the link below. Candidate David Corley wasn’t able to make the meeting, but we hope to have him before the editorial board individually before we make an endorsement.

One other note: the feed didn’t pick up for the first minute or so, so a few of Josh Brown’s opening remarks were cut. Not our best day, tech-wise.

Our next editorial board meeting is tomorrow, the 20th, at 3 p.m. We’ll host three candidates for Supreme Court Justice Position 6: Bryan Chushcoff, Charlie Wiggins and Richard B. Sanders. Look for the live feed on www.kitsapsun.com/live-video, and this time we’ll push the save button and hopefully post a link for you to review.

Also, one last endorsement note that got lost in the 75th anniversary rush last week: The Seattle Times, which has a few more races to endorse than we do, got things started last week. They kicked it off with the 26th District Sentate race, and strongly backed Derek Kilmer.

We’re shooting to start running endorsements the week of July 26th.

— David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

By now you’ve all seen how we celebrated our 75th anniversary in print. I hope you enjoyed the special section, and the online companion piece. I’ve been raving about the ‘How News is Made’ video the past two days, and not because of my performance. It just did such a nice job capturing so many aspects of a day here, as well as the thoughts and personalities that are a part of putting the Sun out. If you see Angela Dice on the street, tell her “nice job.”

The anniversary day here was filled with, naturally, putting together news for kitsapsun.com and Friday’s paper. You can’t completely close down for a party at a daily operation. But we did take some time to savor the moment.

Management grilled hot dogs and burgers out behind the office and we shared a big staff lunch in the afternoon. The in-house ping pong tournament was won by Circulation Manager Dennis Harang, who then compared himself to Kobe Bryant for the focus it took to climb such a mountain. He might have been joking. In the evening we unveiled the “Newspapers in Art” show at Collective Visions Gallery. First prize went to “Paperboy,” by Brett Enos, seen just below. Second was “Zenoscope” by Frank Corsey and Ron Harper, and Bruce Enns earned third for his box covered with portrait illustrations and a poem, titled “Faces of Kitsap.”

"Paperboy," by Brett Enos

We also welcomed Paul Scripps, who flew up from San Diego. Like I mentioned in Thursday’s special section, when Paul visits he always takes the time to greet everyone in the office and expresses how much this newspaper means to his family.  His father was the man who rescued the Sun in 1940, and to hear Paul tell it this place never left the heart of John P. Scripps. Paul’s a true gentleman, and to hear him share about our history — from “an acorn to an oak” is how he phrased it — was special.

I also had a few notes leftover that didn’t make today’s “75 Things You May Not Know About the Sun” I’ll share here.

First, I omitted Ed Friedrich from the list of long-time employees — Ed should have been listed as having been here 25 years. (There was a break in his tenure, so I think HR categorized him incorrectly. Still, I should have caught it.) Secondly, I didn’t find a space to point out one more interesting thing about former editor Gene Gisley: Gisley wasn’t a journalist by trade initially. He was a professional printer, and came up through that side of the business before moving into a reporter’s desk. That doesn’t happen often. Third, when preparing a presentation on our 75th that I’ve given to a few Rotary Clubs, I found Gisley’s notes from 25 years ago. One is a memo scheduling an appointment to speak to a Kiwanis Club. The contact name on that yellowed sheet of paper is Vic Ulsh, now head broker at Bradley Scott — and the same guy who arranged my speech to the East Bremerton Rotary Club on Wednesday. The more things change…

Finally, I apologize for being a little light here on the blog lately. I’ve been busy working on that 75th anniversary material and got a little swamped. But there’s a few ideas kicking around on items to share, and I’m planning to get back into a more regular schedule of keeping you up to date on the comings and goings of a newsroom.

—David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A bit of news for our Opinion page readers out there: This Sunday will be the last you’ll see of Garrison Keillor on the Sun’s pages for awhile.

We were notified today of his intention to take a break, during which he’ll finish a screenplay and begin writing a novel. There wasn’t a date given for him to resume writing the column, which we carry opposite George Will every Sunday and post to kitsapsun.com here. I’ve always been really pleased to have Keillor as a columnist. That’s not only because his style lets me reminisce for a moment about growing up listening to “A Prairie Home Companion” every Saturday night, but also because “The Old Scout“, whether or not you agree with his politics, added a dose of levity to a page that can become a little heavy on analysis of life in the nation’s capital.

Keillor’s syndicate has offered a mixed bag of replacement columnists, and Opinion Editor Jim Campbell and myself are hashing over those to decide whether we’ll pick one to fill the space, or trade writers for a while until we find a fit. You might remember that we lost Star Parker a few months ago as well, so maybe it’s time to reassess our line-up. I tend to be a little traditional when it comes to columnists our readers get used to, but it’s been 18 months since our last columnist shuffle and a little light housecleaning never hurt. I’ll take suggestions, but keep in mind that price, syndicate agreements and availability play a part in any decision. National newspaper columnists aren’t always marketed the same way as cafeteria food.

If you’ll miss Keillor, I’d recommend taking advantage of his absence to catch up on his novels. I read “Lake Wobegon Days” years ago, so I can’t really give an accurate review or even recall the storyline past the self-explanatory title any follower would pick up on. I read one called “Love Me” more recently, and I liked it. The character, a writer, gets out of Minnesota, gains a small bit of fame in New York, and goes through what I’d expect Garrison Keillor to have gone through when a Midwesterner comes to grips with big city life and the struggle that goes with heightened expectations. You see Keillor’s brain working as the main character thinks through life, and hear the old radio announcer’s voice on each page. Hopefully he’ll crank out that next book soon, and be back in the Sun before long.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

This afternoon (Wednesday) we’ll have Sen. Derek Kilmer, defending his Dist. 26 seat in the primary this August, in front of the editorial board with challengers Kristine Danielson and Marty McClendon.

We’re scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The live feed will be at www.kitsapsun.com/live-video. We’ll archive it at www.kitsapsun.com/videos.

Kilmer‘s the Democratic incumbent from Gig Harbor, Danielson is a Port Orchard resident who filed a “no party” preference, and McClendon is also a Gig Harbor resident, running as a Republican.

Like I mentioned last week, we have some priority questions for the candidates and our community board members also are invited to ask what they’d like to know. But if you have any suggestions, post below and I’ll try to fit them in.

—David

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

In May I explained our involvement in a public records case involving Kitsap County and the county’s appeal over attorney’s fees and penalties awarded to the Sun in a trial court’s 2008 ruling.

On Thursday we received notice on the next step, which I’d like to share with you. I also need to clarify a statement regarding our expenses made in the May 16 column and on this blog.

The Division II Court of Appeals issued a ruling that the Sun is owed the full amount of attorney’s fees and costs spent in countering the county’s appeal. That total is $48,821.98. I use the precise figure this time because I did not in May, which left some ambiguity over how much we had spent because I had incorrectly referred to a number lower than the actual total.

The number cited above is only what was spent on the county’s appeal of the fees and penalties awarded by the trial court. Of the $30,000 spent on the initial trial court process, $21,491.55 was awarded.

All told, we spent more than $80,000 fighting for public records and then countering the county’s appeal. The ruling now goes through two further procedural steps, and we expect the case to rest.

Our legal representation, Greg Overstreet of the Allied Law Group, said Thursday’s award is “an unusually high amount of recovery,” which surprised even an experienced public records attorney. That emphasizes my message from a month ago: This was a case worth pursuing to uphold the integrity of public disclosure laws and the spirit with which those laws are treated — and hopefully a signal to public agencies that the public’s right to know will be upheld in our state’s courts.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post