Deciding what to include

When I was 21 I worked as a copy boy, then news clerk and weekend secretary for the managing editors of the New York Times as they put the paper together. I got to sit in on their deliberations about what to include in the edition, how much prominence it should have, and of course what the lead stories were to be. It was a heady and exciting experience to be in the same city room with some of the NYT greats, as well an opportunity to listen to the weekend deliberations of the publisher and editors.

Which brings me to the sometimes difficult personal task of deciding what to include or not to include in articles I write for our award winning little paper.

So today, I'm musing over two recent articles and some choices I (we, with my editor) made for our last edition. Generally, in putting any article together, I have more copy than I can use. We are limited to 3 pages per article, so unless we're doing a series, it means a lot gets left in the notebook that doesn't make it onto the printed page.

When we received, from a reliable source, a copy of an e mail the new president of the Chamber of Commerce was sending to his new board - an e-mail that seemed to restrict informational access not only to the press (at which restrictions seemed largely targeted), but also to the general public, Chamber members, and even other Chamber board members - there was a division within our editorial staff. Some contended that we should print the e mail with no comment at all, let the president likely damn himself with his own words, and let the public make its own evaluation. Others felt that some outside comment would focus attention on what seemed to us to be an in-your-face clampdown on the free flow of information and power grab by the new president. I was particularly troubled by the new president's edict that he be the sole press contact. That in itself is not so unusual. Even public boards sometimes appoint a press contact person. But the press still uses whatever means it can to get the story. What bothered me most, was that Carlson actually forbade other board members from speaking to the press at all. George Orwell in "Animal Farm" would have had fun riffing on that. In the end, we decided to print the e mail and include outside comment from two sources who looked at the legality of what Carlson is proposing (it's legal per se) as well as the appearance of his actions and how they might play out in this small town.

Since I wrote the article, it's obvious I came around to the second position, but after reflection (and of course after the paper had been put to bed), I felt the first position might have been more effective and might better have served the community's interests.

Time will tell. The reason for blogging this is to provide a window into the deliberative process that accompanies many if not all articles - what to include and what to leave out - what best serves the public's interest and keeps them informed.

In the other article, one about the Animal Rescue Friends of Idyllwild, there are very definitely two sides squaring off over the appointment of a new director, an appointment the long time shepherd of ARF, Jane Stonehill, vehemently opposes. The present board, only one of whom served on the board during the new director's previous association with ARF, protested that they are doing good for the community and that there was no need to bring up Stonehill's opposition to the appointment, since, regardless of her long association, significant investment of heart and capital, and passion about the organization she long headed, she was no longer involved and therefore should have no public airing of her views. Was Stonehill's oppposition newsworthy? Should we do an article and include it? We determined it was.

Again, the question in writing the ARF article, as it was with the Chamber article, was what to include and what not to include - what is legitimately newsworthy and what is less so.

So, I think back to being 21 and being on the (I think) 6th floor of the old NYT building on weekends as the publisher and editors weighed what to include and what to exclude - what was important and what was not quite so important. Sometimes you get it right and you're happy. Sometimes you don't and you kick yourself. And sometimes, like today, you're not completely sure.