Home > View from the Newsroom > Archives > 2008 > July > 25 > Entry
The line between news and opinion
I’ve received a couple of e-mails in the past 24 hours from the same person. She asked that her name not be used, so it won’t. Not that it matters.
In the first instance she was praising us, and reporter Amy Hamilton in particular, for the work we did earlier this week when Amy broke the story about Roice-Hurst Humane Society being in violation of state laws that govern charities.
A quick recap if you missed it: Roice-Hurst, the county’s only no-kill animal shelter, has been in dire need of funds. It sent out a distress call to the community and the community responded with more than $210,000 in donations. The problem, as Amy reported, was that the non-profit group failed to do the required paperwork with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and as a result could not legally accept donations.
That was a good story, we thought, and one that should be reported. The e-mailer agreed, heaping praise on Amy for her good work.
“Amy Hamilton has introduced the community to a very real problem. One we don’t wish to look at directly. And, she did it factually and with finesse. It does no one any good if you ‘miff’ someone off in the pet industry/community—it serves only to set things ablaze. While any negative comment against or about Roice-Hurst is liable to cause a stir, Amy Hamilton was able to do what she did in a straight forward manner and it allows those of us who wish to look at this problem head on without flinching and try to see if we as a community can discuss (in an adult manner) and address the issues,” wrote the e-mailer.
I couldn’t agree more. Without going into detail because it’s not relevant, I’ll just say that there were some delicate issues to deal with in that story, and Amy dealt with them in the manner we expect from all of out reporters — professionally and with compassion.
Amy’s story ran on Page 1, the prime real estate in The Daily Sentinel for news stories. News stories, by definition, are to be nothing more than facts. They are to take no position and they are to be as objective, complete and fair as we can humanly make them. We don’t decide what is a news story based on what we think of the issue. We make that decision based on nothing more than whether we think it is of importance to readers.
But we do have a place in the newspaper where we do allow opinions — ours and others. It’s Page 4A, the editorial page. And on that page today there is an opinion piece that says we think the problems besetting Roice-Hurst, while very real, are nonetheless not of such importance that they should cause the facility to be shut down. In fact, we think it deserves continued public support. Those observations are opinions. Some people may agree with them and some may not.
The e-mailer in question falls into the latter camp.
She wrote: “You guys have most assuredly pulled a quick turn on a dime that I was not expecting. You are advocating support for an organization who has (by way of Secretary of State records) elicited funding illegally—I don’t care if they knew they were wrong or not. The article somehow puts forth that you hope because the Secretary of State is so overwhelmed and understaffed, that Roice-Hurst will squeak by without being noticed? What the hell kind of reporting/editorial is this? Is it really the Daily Sentinel’s official stance to turn the other cheek even when illegal activity has occurred?
“I’m simply stunned by what I’ve read. Amy Hamilton did some excellent investigating to set you all up for a slam dunk when the timing was right. What the hell happened?
“Now, this latest … editorial actually at the end of the article says ‘help save the unwanted pets and donate to Roice-Hurst.’ That is just too quaint for me. You begin an investigation that could prove to be bruising enough to them to make them contemplate a change in practice, then you end up using editorial space to elicit funding for a program that has illegally elicited funds in the past?
“Wow, knock my socks off. I never saw that coming.”
She fails to understand the difference between the story Amy did and the editorial that appeared in today’s paper. Apparently, she thinks if we do the story that points out Roice-Hurst’s problems, then our editorial position will be that Roice-Hurst should be prosecuted, a possibility, albeit a slim one, under a strict reading of the state’s charity laws.
Reporting about something gone awry, though, does not automatically lead to an editorial position that someone needs to pay for the indiscretion. And in this case, we thought it did not.
What’s more, the editorial in today’s newspaper by no means indicates that we won’t continue to report on Roice-Hurst. If we find out more about the organization that casts it in a negative light we will continue to report it.
The point is this: What is written in the news columns has no bearing on what is written on the opinion page. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. They appear in different places in the newspaper and serve different functions.
This Sunday, for example, The Daily Sentinel will endorse either Janet Rowland or David Kearsley for county commissioner. I’m not going to say which one now. But it will be one of them. That does not mean that we will quit reporting on the other one, or that if our favorite does something stupid during the campaign, that we won’t report that. We will.
If Roice-Hurst next week does something untoward, we’ll report that, too.
That line between news stories and editorials is one that is very clear to us in the newsroom. I know it’s less clear to readers. I hope this piece helps explain it. But I’ve heard from enough readers over the years (that’s a fact) to know that it won’t erase all the doubts out there (that’s an opinion).
Comments
By JO
July 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Denny - Thanks for the great editorial. Great points and well written. Enjoyed it very much. jo
By Knock Me Over With a Feather
July 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
I was looking through the opinion page searching for your editorial about Royce Hurst and found the one endorsing Dave Kearsley. I must admit that I’m not surprised. Why would the Sentinel want to support an accomplished woman who has principle? Your blind obsession against the energy industry has lead you to endorse a Massachusetts transplant that sounds like Ben Affleck’s character in Good Will Hunting when he talks. Can you say: “Haaaavad Baaaa?” You people continue to make yourselves irrelevant.
By Richie Ann
July 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
That commenter must work in PR!