I’ve largely held off on commenting on the Oct. 10 switch of baltimoresun.com toward a digital subscriber pay model. In part, I didn’t want my opinions to muddle the waters where readers were sounding off and my company was sorting through their response. But I also refrained because of my own conflicted feelings on the announcement. Now that there have been a few days for things to simmer down, and my feelings on the situation to more fully form, I felt it right to share them. I hope you’ll indulge me by reading.

—

WHY THINGS MUST CHANGE

The reality is, nobody wants readers to have to pay for news. For years I have been very against the notion, citing journalists’ democratic duties and ethical obligations. If given a valid alternative, I would bet most, if not all, who work at newspapers that have switched to a digital subscriber model would prefer their content be kept free.

Unfortunately, the newspaper sales which have traditionally propped up these free digital offerings aren’t there anymore. They’ve been dwindling for the past decade and they’re not going to come back. Gone too are hefty paychecks from classified advertising, thanks to cheap and free sites like Craigslist and eBay. A third punch comes from declining display advertising sales, which have only dropped quicker as the economy has gone sour.

So what happens when practically every source of revenue for your business is declining?

Shit hits the fan and you’ve got to try something else.

At first we got leaner. (And by we, I mean newspaper organizations in general, not The Sun specifically.) We all saw respected colleagues laid off, newspapers got thinner, bureaus near and far closed and salaries flatlined.

Next, we cut more. Beyond just trimming the fat, we started to cut into the muscle that once made us so strong. Buyouts, centralization, reduced benefits, no more holiday parties.

But all this cutting costs hasn’t really saved us. It’s been a quick-fix to keep newspaper companies afloat. The root of the problem is that our primary service — news production — doesn’t pay the bills right now.

—

BUT, WHY AN ONLINE PAY MODEL?

Put quite simply, there is little other choice.

I haven’t seen a successful non ad-based business plan for medium- to large-sized newspaper companies that doesn’t involve an online subscription. Yes, there are other options for smaller media companies (consulting, event hosting, donation-based and grant-funded models), but these haven’t proven to bring in the kind of revenue needed to support bigger operations like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe and countless others.

What has been finding some success (and how much has yet to be seen), is asking readers to pay for the product they are consuming.

Critics of online pay models are quick to attack media companies for doing something very fundamental – selling their service. Perhaps there is another solution for big media that will prove successful someday, but that day isn’t here yet. These are the cards we have left to play.

It may be an unpopular decision, though the math is quite easy. Make money again, or unplug the servers, turn off the press and call it a day.

To this, some may just say, “Good riddance! Let those media companies die. Blogs and Twitter can do the job.” Which brings me to my next collection of thoughts.

—

ON LETTING NEWSPAPERS DIE

I am a digital journalist and always have been. I’m a huge supporter of sharing news through social media, so much so that I make my livelihood doing it. I’m also a big believer in the power of blogs and alternative media companies. In fact, I think there are many here in Baltimore that are making a difference and providing an excellent service to the community. (I would list them here but am nervous I’d leave someone important out.)

However.

I also still believe in the necessity of “big” media for a few reasons.

First, the logistical:

• Is a blogger going to drag the government into court if they refuse to release a public record?
• Can small media companies afford to have a reporter solely focused on all the necessary beats: crime, education, transportation, health, the environment, the courts and so on? If not, what falls through the cracks?
• If rumors bubble up on Twitter, will there always be someone there to fact check them?
• Will disenfranchised communities continue to be served when blogs/small pubs tend to focus on the most popular topics? (Hint: it’s not often minority communities.)
• Will public figures feel as accountable to their communities when they’re being watched by blogs, social media and niche news sites?

Maybe you feel that some of these questions can be answered in the positive, but I’m not confident.

Secondly, the influential:

Big media still plays an important part in the local news ecosystem.

Even if you’ve never opened an edition of The Baltimore Sun or visited the website, you have still been impacted by its journalism. With approximately 140 professional journalists working full time, The Sun is at least twice the size of the next largest newsroom in the city. (This stands to be corrected.) As a result, The Sun functions as an extension of many of those smaller newsrooms. Stories originally uncovered by Sun reporters end up on nightly newscasts and rehashed on the local blogosphere. (To be fair, this happens the other way around too, although I’d dare to say to a much smaller degree.)

If The Sun weren’t around, the local journalism community as a whole would lose a lot of manpower. Though media companies try and compete with each other, the reality is we’re all working together to accomplish similar goals. We build off each other, try to out-do each other and are generally better journalists because there are others nudging us along. Taking 140 reporters off the streets is bad for Baltimore, and I think all local media outlets would suffer.

In summary, I feel what is happening at The Sun is necessary to keep journalists working for their communities. I hope that revenue can support improvements to the digital offerings (which The Sun knows, need work.) Though I might not love digital subscriptions and the dynamic they create, I’m spending every birthday wish and penny thrown into a fountain hoping they work.

Or that a better idea rises to the top.

I thought about having a LeBron-James-type special to announce my next career move, but I think a blog post will do…

I have accepted a job at The Baltimore Sun as their deputy director of audience engagement (or community manager, if you prefer to keep things simple.) I’ll be working with a talented team that produces the daily programming of The Sun’s social media accounts. I’ll also be coordinating audience engagement events in the community, working to enhance mobile products and content, and hopefully helping grow The Sun’s interactive and data-driven online content (gotta keep my fingers coding somehow!)

I’m thrilled to be given this opportunity by The Sun, and even more excited to begin working with a team that is already doing great work: Pete Sweigard, Dean Jones Jr., Steve Earley (Go Elon!) and Matt Vensel.

On a personal note, this is a big move for me as well. My boyfriend of 9-years, Sam, and I will be taking this step to Baltimore together. After so many years of long-distance, it’s a welcome change. Sam completed his PhD in Chemistry earlier this month at UNC-Chapel Hill and will now be heading to Aberdeen Proving Ground to do fuel cell research for the Army. It’s an excellent opportunity for him, especially because he’ll be working primarily with physicists (who he says he tends to learn the most from.)

The hard part of all this is leaving my job as online producer at The Virginian-Pilot (PilotOnline.com and HamptonRoads.com). There are few papers of their size in the industry that are doing the quality of work that The Pilot puts out. I am constantly delighted by interesting stories, creative page design and stunning photography. It’s one sexy paper. Keep up the good work, everyone! You may have lost an employee, but you gained a reader in Baltimore.

Over my two years there, we’ve seen tremendous growth online, and that doesn’t show signs of slowing down anytime soon. The producing staff – Deb Markham, David Putney, Andrew Tran and Mark Edelen – are truly a group of exceptional people. They are constantly learning new skills, despite being stretched in many different directions. They’re tireless, sometimes working from their smart phones on lunch breaks or evenings out at the bar watching movies. I have learned better journalism, cleaner code, wider reach and smarter production from each of them. Producing is often a thankless job, so I’d like to take a moment to recognize you four for your amazing talents and contributions to the organization.

My apartment hunting in Baltimore has already begun. My final day at The Pilot is June 10th and I’ll start at The Sun June 21st. For so many years I’ve driven by Baltimore on my way up I-95 to visit my father in Bethlehem, Pa. Evoking “Hairspray” I always sing a little, “Good Morning, Baltimore!” Well this time, it really is good morning. I can’t wait to see what the day brings.

Shortly after I arrived at The Virginian-Pilot, a beloved, long-standing high school principal, Nathan T. Hardee, was found dead in his home. As a community gathered to mourn, reporters rushed to get a story together. Official details were sketchy but rumors ran wild that the death was a suicide.

The story we ran on the first day in print and online announced the death, but gave few other details. Before long, online comments began pouring in and many mentioned the suicide rumor. Though our reporters were quite sure the rumor was true, it wasn’t on the record yet and we could not confirm the fact. We eventually turned comments off on the story.

By the second day, police confirmed that they were investigating the death as a suicide. Since Hardee was so well known in the community, he was ruled a public figure by the newspaper and we chose to include the information about the suicide in the second day story.

I think few in the newsroom would have predicted the response that we got.

The family was extremely upset and many readers were also angry. A predominant number of comments on the second day story bashed the paper’s decision to include the details.  We were painted as a money-grubbing news organization who was promoting the most sensational part of the story to sell more newspapers. While in reality that couldn’t have been farther from the truth, to a layperson looking in we were heartless and invasive.

Our editor, Denis Finley, wrote a blog entry about the decision to run the story. He writes:

Suicide, rightly or wrongly, has always been surrounded by stigma.  Many consider it an embarrassing invasion of privacy to the dead person’s family when a suicide is made public.  But when the person is as well-known as Mr. Hardee, people want answers.  They want to know what happened.  How did he die, they inevitably will ask us.

Even though most employees at the paper agreed with the decision, Finley called together a committee of people from all across the newsroom to take a closer look at our policy of reporting on suicide. We wanted to make sure we had a fair, clear and up-to-date policy.

For years, The Pilot and many other newspapers have yielded to a “public place, public figure” policy. That means that if the suicide is done in a public place, like by jumping off a bridge, it is newsworthy. If a public figure, like a city council person or celebrity, were to die by suicide (even in their own home) it would be newsworthy.

Our committee took more than 6 months to investigate our policy. We reviewed policy’s of other newspapers, returned to our own coverage of the Hardee suicide, spoke with a national panel of mental health experts, heard from relatives of people who had taken their lives and also spoke with local health officials.  It was certainly one of the most thought-provoking topics I’ve ever tackled. Though summarizing all of our discussions could fill a book, I do want to give you the short and sweet version of what we were considering as we drafted a new policy:

1. Speed of online journalism. It’s 9 p.m. and police are reporting that a body has been found in a house. Online reporters rush to get the story online, only to learn in the next days/weeks that the death has been ruled a suicide. Do we follow up even though this is a private person in a private place? Do we allow readers (and neighbors) go on thinking it could have been a murder? Is that a public safety concern?
2. “Public” is hard to define. Who is a public figure and who is private? The internet has made information about local people easier than ever to access. Also, what qualifies as a “public place?” If someone died by suicide in their front yard, where neighbors could see, is that public? If someone dies in a park when nobody is looking, is that private?
3. What to do with comments? Even if you choose to omit a fact from the story, it is likely to show up in comments. Do you censor comments, even if they contain information that you know is true? That doesn’t feel right. But it’s risky to allow commenters to present information that you don’t confirm or deny.
4. Suicide and stigma. Though people who are suffering from mental health issues are just as sick as someone with cancer, there is a stigma that still surrounds mental health — particularly suicide. Does the media’s shyness from suicide help contribute to that stigma? Afterall, more people die by suicide each year than are murdered. However, you’d never guess this given the disproportionate reporting. Is it our responsibility to let people know how common it is? Would that help remove stigma?
5. Obligation to the family. Should the wishes of the family be considered? How heavily?
6. The copycat effect. If coverage of suicide is increased, could more people choose to die by suicide? This was a controversial topic in our discussions because experts have had mixed results in studies that look at the copycat effect.
7. If we cover, how to cover. Glorifying someone who has died by suicide can be dangerous, mental health experts told us, because of the copycat effect. Should we be careful not to over-glorify someone who has died this way? Some stories include the method by which someone died by suicide. Is that appropriate or necessary? Is it ever fair to speculate why someone died by suicide — like bankruptcy or a recent divorce? Some mental health experts said we should include those details, but as journalists it made us uncomfortable. How can we ever present the motive of a dead person as a fact?

We tried to be clear and concise, but also flexible enough for editorial decisions to be made.  In the end, this is the policy we came up with:

When we report on a death we should state the cause – including suicide – whether the person is a public or private individual. We also should say whether a death is being investigated as a suicide.

Suicide itself is not automatically newsworthy, but reporters and editors should not shy away from investigating and writing about the issue and its impact on a community. Avoiding stories about suicide could contribute to a stigma that shrouds its prevalence. In short, if a death is deemed newsworthy and it’s a suicide, we will report it as such.

Nothing should take precedence over news judgment. But staff members should be aware of possible copycat effects of suicide coverage. We should carefully consider whether to include the method of suicide and should avoid repetitive quotes that offer an idealized portrait of the subject.
Hesitate to include speculation from friends and relatives about why the individual committed suicide.

Reporters, editors and online producers should weigh whether to include resources such as suicide hot line numbers. Treat this the same as any story about a death or an illness.  We would not automatically put the number for an AIDS hotline with an AIDS story, but there are times when we might.

An article should not be displayed more or less prominently because it involves suicide.

Online coverage: The fast pace of newsgathering may require us to report a death online before details are available about the cause. In such cases, we should always follow up with that information online when it is known. This might lead us to publish information about a suicide online though it wouldn’t be considered worthy of print coverage.

If online comments on suicide stories are allowed, they should be closely monitored to avoid circulating inflammatory statements.

In the era of e-mail, instant messaging, cell phones and Twitter, many have remarked that we’re losing the art and affection of handwritten letters. Somehow a quick e-mail banged out in 12 point Arial just doesn’t hold the same weight as a carefully chosen greeting card, engraved with flawed handwriting and marked with an autograph at the end (bonus points if it’s barely legible).

Since I was in high school, I have saved every single greeting card that has been given to me. I think that there is just something so intensely personal and thoughtful about sending a real greeting card these days, that I just can’t throw them away.

Instead. I file them.

This evening as I was cleaning out my files, I noticed that the section I have dedicated to the cards was bulging. A few swollen, misshapen files have lost all purpose under the tremendous weight of my collection. I decided to go through and remove all the envelopes, in an attempt to cut down on the clutter.

Two hours later. I had re-read every card.

In these moments I relieved birthdays — seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty and twenty-one — I relieved past moments of glory, illnesses, gifts given, party’s attended, milestones achieved.

I read through my Dad’s long, thoughtful notes, like when I turned 18:
“Whew! College beginnings, 18th Birthday and all the wonder, promise and excitement of a new chapter in your life … The next 4 years will change you in ways that you expect and don’t expect (but are good).” He also includes his advice in three parts 1) Be safe, take care of yourself 2) Study hard 3) Have fun.

A Valentine from my stand-in parents while I finished high school, Val and George Padgett:
“Olivia, Happy Valentine’s Day! It’s so nice to have you still close by. Love, Val & George.”

My Mother’s short and sweet notes which are always on the world’s funniest cards, like when I was getting ready to go to college:
“Learn a lot about life, love and what you study! Have fun! I love you! Mom”

A note from a favorite professor after I was chosen as Editor-in-Chief of the paper:
“This is a lifelong commitment, not just a 1-year gig … establish a high expectation of quality from the start; don’t put up with slackers or gripers — dump them … Believe in the struggle! Janna”

Or from a roommate, who was just a few months younger than me when I turned 21:
“I hope your 21st is the best year ever! Now you can buy me alcohol too. Love you! Stef”

From my little brother who didn’t bother to write anything in the card, not even sign it:
Card reads: It’s your birthday! Maybe this will finally be the year that mom and dad start loving you as much as me. Enjoy your day. (Thanks, Zach.)

From Fritz, a friend of my mother’s, who has my favorite all caps handwriting:
Card reads: You’re 21! One day you’ll look back on this birthday and not remember a damn thing! Handwritten: … AND THAT DAY WILL BE SEPT. 4! CONGRATULATIONS YOU FINALLY MADE IT! Fritz & Aimee”

But, of all the cards there is one that continually sticks out as my favorite card of all time. It was given to me just days after I was born by my godfather, Jim. Though I haven’t spoken with him in years, I always keep the words he wrote to me over 21 years ago close by:

This is a long one, but I just can’t pull an exceprt from it and let you sample the letter. I feel it’s something that has to be taken in full.

Card reads:
Dear God
be good to me
the sea is so wide
and my boat is
so small

Handwritten:
Dear Olivia,
This card has been with me since 1970, hanging in a frame on one wall and then another and then about and so on, until tonight, when I took it down to send to you.

This card means a lot to me, which makes it a worthy gift. Your mother and father have been in the same room with this card many times. Long before you were, or were even dreamed of, your mom and dad — conscious or not (I’ll leave it to them to explain “consciousnesses” to you) have blessed this card with their presence. And it is “your presence” that I celebrate by sending it.

Welcome to this planet – this lovely place, so full of all that is wonderful and wholesome and good. It is not exactly the world I would have chosen to welcome you to (and even more than me, I know that your mom and dad are committed to this world being better for you as you grow up). And this is the only world I have to welcome you to.

So WELKOMMEN — be happy here, find the beauty and wonder and awe. Welcome, small one, to a planet large enough to dream and hope and love in. And a planet so in need of dreams and hopes and love, most of all, love.

You are a precious thing – just by being alive, you are precious. And I give thanks to a God you might some day meet face-to-face for you!

May the sea be what it will be — wide, fierce and deep — and may your boat, small as it is, bear you to wonderous lands and great adventures.

Benn and Josh and Mimi – who I love – wish you, with me, a pleasant voyage.

Shalom
Jim

Thanks for the lovely words, Jim. My voyage is going just grand.

One of my responsibilities as the Online Community Producer is to keep watch over the comments that people are posting at the bottom of PilotOnline stories. Now if you’ve ever wasted enough time to read the comments that pop up at the bottom of a YouTube video, then you know the caliber of comment that I often get to see. I’m not sure what it is about commenting that entices vulgar extremists, but my hunch is it has something to do with ego.

Anywho. Lately I’ve noticed that our right-wing constituents seem to be struggling to decide on which derogatory name they will use when referring to President Barack Obama (who, as far as they are concerned, is planning to take away their guns, kill their unborn babies, institute a Marxist philosophy on all Americans, and hold the middle-class hard-working tax-paying law-abiding gun-totting white man down). Here’s a little sampling of what I’ve seen so far:

BO
Barack HUSSEIN Obama (can we not give it a rest yet?)
Obummer
Barack Obailout

There are countless others, but they all seem to be reworkings of the same four concepts: he smells, he shares a name with a mass-murdurer, they’re bummed he’s in office and he’s partly responsible for the bailout.

I wonder if any of these will eventually stick and become as pervasive as “W” (pronounced DUB-yuh). Perhaps approval ratings have to dip below 40% before the country finds the need to choose a mean-spirited nickname. I guess well have to wait and see. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with the nicknames of other presidents past.

Gerald Ford – Jerry, the accidental president (ouch)
Calvin Coolidge – Silent Cal
Andrew Johnson – Sir Veto
Dwight D. Eisenhower – Kansas Cyclone
James Buchanan – The Do-Nothing President
(for more)