Too Hard on the Lowell Sun?
Having a blog means being able to write when the spirit moves you, to clarify a previous thought, or simply to respond to something from the “offline” world when you think there needs to be a discussion. Like my blog responses to conversations with elected officials…when Councilor Rita Mercier decided to take my lack of support for reelecting incumbents personally…or when Rep. Golden failed to get the point of a post (admitting he hardly read the blog) aimed at asking a question about some legislation.
In this case, I almost decided not to write out my thoughts because I’m probably going to piss some people off. Well, the heck with that. 
I’m going to explain some things, and I’m then going to ask for feedback. I think it’s worth it.
The item in question is whether or not I/we (I will take primary lead on this) are too hard on (”bashing” was a word I think was used) the Lowell Sun. The conversation stemmed from a reader believing I was too unfair - actually, inaccurate - in my sarcastic remarks about the Sun in this post from the morning about Meehan and UML. But it extends beyond that to all the frustrations we’ve voiced over the Lowell Sun in the last couple of years.
In the post, I said, “Even the Sun (a laggard when it comes to updating their website) put the item in their breaking news section” with a link to the news story. Specifically, there is nothing inaccurate there, though it’s a little biting, I’ll admit. The Lowell Sun is a laggard compared with most newspapers its size or bigger in updating their website. It’s a marketing system that I’m sure their corporate parent chose. They want the print edition (presumably where most of the money is) to have high priority over their website. But it has the end result of making much of the news they post on the web, especially that covered by other papers in the state or nation, awfully out-of-date.
The complaint really stemmed from this particular case, though; that the Sun had actually “broken” the story first last night, and on its website immediately put the smallish article up in the Breaking News section. They felt I mislead about how “timely” the Sun was. But the published Globe article this morning was already more comprehensive than the short breaking story from the Sun, because any comprehensive article from the paper edition that the Sun runs on any subject is never updated on the web before noon.
Now, I don’t think this is a whiny who-gets-credit-for-breaking-news complaint. I do think it’s a legitimate one. But I also take a little bit of umbrage at the fact that I was called inaccurate. I was not. The Sun doesn’t always update their site in a timely manner, and if a little frustration comes out when I talk about it, that’s because a) it’s frustrating and b) this is a blog. It’s an online journal (in the “diary” sense) of opinion. Writing a blog is more intimate and passionate.
And on the inaccuracy comment, if you don’t like something I say and think I was unfair in dealing with the Sun or any other subject, make your case in the comments. That’s why they’re there. I do actually stand by my sarcasm, because it expresses real feelings, and it’s a legitimate point, and I’m willing to defend it (hence this post).
Hell, if you don’t think you can put your name on on a comment, be anonymous if you want.
I will admit to having very little respect for some aspects of the Sun - its website was one of the first things on which I commented, and very little from that list has changed. I also can’t stand the agenda-driving motivation of much of its editorial page. But I have enormous amounts of respect for individuals at the Sun, hard working men and women, especially those who make it their goal to have fair and balanced coverage.
The great thing about a blog is when you have something “on your chest,” you can, if you so choose, put it out there. Anyone can start a blog and say whatever they want (short of incitement to violence or libel). And blogs rely on credibility built up over time in order to gain readership. A juggernaut like the Lowell Sun should have very little to fear from a blog who is simply “bashing” them with no reason, as the credibility of the blogger will quickly be slagged…and maybe they have everything to fear from one who criticizes fairly.
Some people obviously think this blog’s credibility has been harmed by the constant frustrations expressed about the Lowell Sun (I will admit, it has rather seeped into our language). So, what do you think?
January 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Lynne: One of the great things about LiL is that it is an “alternative” to the hard copy newspaper. It gives the reader the option of instantly discussing “news”. We all know that you can “spin” here just as well as they can there, however their spin goes out to thousands of homes daily and you haven’t gotten there yet. So, don’t ever be afraid of “pissing people off”. If you want to make an omelette, you have to crack a few eggs.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
it would be impossible to be too harsh on the sun. that paper stinks. the website is worse.
i pin none of this on the reporters, copy editors, photographers, etc. they - like their peers at other papers - are in an impossible position, with demands constantly on the rise and resources rapidly declining. anyone who knows anything about the business knows that they basically work for tedious, awful hours nothing, an injustice that for some reason has become part of the old media institution. it’s tradition that reporters make jack, so it’s just accepted. whatever.
but that being said, the paper offers nothing. it is horrible. the website is a joke. while the entire print industry suffers from short-term thinking, the sun is miles and miles behind that.
how about the phone line thing they’ve got going now? are you kidding me? i listened to one of them for fun one night, and there was one caller, who seemed to have been pre-arranged. that phone conference call thing has to be the absolute worst idea i’ve ever heard.
and then there is the campanini blog, which probably doesn’t even need to be commented on since it’s all but dead. but i find it VERY disturbing that the editor-in-chief of the paper would go on record with his opinions - often with heated rhetoric - on such a wide variety of topics. it would be one thing if he was just the head of the editorial and opinion page. but the fact that he spews off the way he does - during his infrequent posts - is alarming.
but the point is, the paper is a bore and will only get worse. it’s a shame.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
but but but… where am I going to read about horses? Isn’t that what everyone really hopes for in their paper and thier paper’s blog?
(snark)
January 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
in the interest of balance, i should have mentioned that i am impressed by the sun’s short videos. (shot by photogs and reporters, i’m sure, who are paid nothing for the extra effort.) it is a nice touch that would benefit greatly from better presentation. the videos sort of get lost in that disaster of a site. did i mention the site was a disaster? yeah.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I always thought that for the most part I have been pretty fair in my posts about the Sun. Yes, I will agree we do have some commentators who have some real problems with the leadership of the paper but for the most part it is justified.
However, I will reiterate again that I think the Sun’s local beat reporters do a very good job but there are two major issues which bother me; one is their editorial views and the other is their web site.
There is a major movement in the newspaper industry, lead by WSJ, LA Times, Boston Globe to make their web site the location for news and leave the hard copy for analysis and fluff stories. Most of us LiL people do not read the hard copy, we do read the web site, however.
Unfortunately, the Sun does not post the detailed news story on their web site until noon; while the hard copy hits the streets at the crack of dawn. So at times, there is a disconnect between what appears in the hard copy and what is still on their web site.
For example today when I logged on around noon to read the local news, they had two stories about the National Guard office; one in the “breaking news” section and then they had the Robert Mills’ story in the local news section. The two stories differed in tone. Mills did his job and got the facts, as for the unsigned “breaking news story” with the words “vandalized” in its title and a reference to anti-war activist was confusing.
Why don’t they update their web site when the stories are written and approved?
By the time the article appear on their site, the information is dated. In a world that is dominated with Google, Youtube, CNN, etc…, the news needs to be disseminated in real time.
It would be helpful to the discussion if those readers of LiL who think we bash the Sun unfairly participate in the conversation.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I think it’s fair to hold any public institution accountable — that includes the Sun (especially since it has no competition).
Perhaps it would be helpful, however, to make a bigger deal of when they do “get it right?”
January 31st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
When Lynne started this blog, she didn’t really expect to get readers. She expected, for the most part, to be one more lefty blogger howling in the wilderness. The fact that she has attracted so many readers is, I think, indicative of how starved the Merrimack valley has been for media voices that do not echo the Sun’s agenda.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:26 am
The Lowell Sun’s editorial writers and columnists take savage joy in sarcasticac and mean spirited attacks on people they disagree with. –for example in their anonymous annual “Christmas Presents” column
Their feelings are hurt because leftinLowell points out their deficiencies?
My heart pumps piss for them.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
Hey, start a thread about how 10 cities get magnetic light-up advertising signs, and only Boston calls out the bomb squad. Bold initiative or chicken little?
Please, please, please?
I promise to hammer on the Globe for their idiotic editorial this morning, and that’ll even out the hammering we usually give the Sun.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:53 am
lol
February 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Actually, today’s editorial wasn’t too bad:
http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_5134900
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 am
Hi Lynne,
How about some kind of way to search on this blog? I wanted to quoted Kendal Wallace from a Boston Phoenix article saying something to the effect that “if it’s bad for Lowell you won’t read it in the Lowell Sun”.
The Sun is a piece of trash! I remember when it was actually a reputable newspaper. Now, I read it only for the “Irish Sports Page”!
The Sun editorials…are signed by NO ONE! Yet they require folks writting in to sign their names, and then only publish what is convenient for their purposes. And Back Stab? Who know which staffers are writting in!
Bash the Sun, yep. Wallace is quick to take credit for everything right with the city, even though he has personally done nothing. So why shouldn’t what’s left of his paper take the blame as well?
The Sun is setting!
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
What really bothers me are the Saturday “Chat” columns by Kendall Wallace. For example, On Saturday, Jan. 13th Mr. Wallace wrote about the Tyngsboro youth who invaded a fellow student’s home and assaulted those in the home. He starts by saying, “A gang of young men, who in court look like All-American boys….” I was so angry with that I couldn’t even finish reading the rest. What does an All-American boy look like? When the Lowell Sun publishes their “All-American” champion page, I can assure you that those All Americans do not look like the youth from Tyngsboro. College “All Americans” look even less like those youth, and we won’t even talk about what professional “All Americans” look like. All I saw from the pictures in the Sun were a group of non descript white boys. Is that what it means to be “All American?” It’s not the America that I live in. I wonder what the top 10 students in Lowell High’s graduating class look like…do they look “All American?”
Thanks, Lynne, for a place to vent.