Posted on 09/12/2010 6:25:06 AM PDT by raccoonradio
(Pic of cover below) We made a news decision on Friday that offended many readers and we sincerely apologize for it.
Many saw Saturday's front-page story and photo regarding the local observance of the end of Ramadan as offensive, particularly on the day, Sept. 11, when our nation and the world were paying tribute to those who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks nine years ago.
We have acknowledged that we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page.
What you are reading today was the planned coverage of the 9/11 events. We believed that the day after the anniversary would be the appropriate occasion to provide extensive news coverage of the events and observances conducted locally and elsewhere.
In hindsight, it is clear that we should have handled this differently and with greater sensitivity toward the painful memories stirred by the anniversary of 9/11.
Last week, I welcomed a former colleague back into the news business. He retired at a young age after successful stints as a reporter, editor and then publisher of one of the country's largest newspapers.
I told him he was about to witness a new world in media, a world where 24/7 is not a cliche but a way of life for us. We literally work around the clock in order to contend with the speed of communication.
On Saturday morning, he witnessed what I was talking about.
Readers began writing to me and to our paper and website en masse, criticizing our decision on coverage and story play of the local observance of the end of Ramadan by local Muslims.
We began answering them immediately and directly by e-mail and we posted responses on Facebook, Twitter and on our website. A good eight hours into the day, our editors were still working from home to keep up with a necessary response to our customers. Some managers came to the office on what was supposed to be a day off.
I expect no accolades for what I see as our prompt and courteous responses. Working fast, with immediacy and with concern for fairness, is just part of our reality these days.
Here is one of the responses I sent, which I believe covers a lot of ground:
"We are sorry you are offended by today's front page photo and story and certainly understand your point of view. Many feel the same way. We do not offer the stock excuses you cite. We should have balanced this story with one that showed our sensitivity to today's historic importance. You will see tomorrow that our planned coverage of today's 9/11 events is extensive, far more so than the coverage of this event on Friday. We apologize for what may appear to be our insensitivity to the historic significance of this day. Tomorrow's newspaper will feature extensive coverage of the commemoration of today's events.
"Our editors believed that 3,000 persons marking the passage of a religious observance and congregating in Portland to do so was news. I believe that decision was correct but I also believe we should have handled it in a more sensitive way."
Twice each day, a group of highly experienced editors convenes to make news decisions on story coverage and story play. I do not attend those meetings but I take responsibility for their decisions. I trust the editors who make the decisions because I know how much they care about our communities and about being fair. They try hard and most days they succeed.
As experienced and as concerned as they might be, however, they are also human. They make mistakes. They also are free to voice opinions, and some of them may disagree with my stance on this issue. That's OK. We believe in free-flowing dialogue and openness.
We have had that same dialogue and openness with our readers over the past 24 hours. Virtually all those we have heard from have been outraged over our decision on news play in Saturday's paper. Most have also been courteous and polite.
Again, if you were offended, I apologize.
To those of you who took the time to write or tweet, or go to Facebook, thanks for letting us know your opinions and how much you care.
Richard L.Connor
Editor and Publisher
BS
That is the most transparent apology I’ve read.
He is FOS.
Newspapers subscribers, how about showing your opinions by canceling!
>>Our editors believed that 3,000 persons marking the passage of a religious observance and congregating in Portland to do so was news.
3,000? That number rings a bell somehow...as in people making a passage from life to death nine years ago yesterday...
This would be an excellent opportunity to cancel your subscription to the Portland Press Herald and allow it to join other lefty mouthpieces in a journalistic grave.
I guess on 12/25 edition they will have pictures of Bethlehem...yeah, right.
The democrats and liberals would like nothing better than for all of us to forget all about 9/11 and what happened on that horrible terrible day.
That was also the day when radical Islam awakened the sleeping giant.
No but they plan on running the usual pics of homeless people eating a turkey dinner while you heartless rich people exchange gifts at Christmas.
Guess what I’ll be using for starter paper when I burn a Koran next year on 9/11?
“Our editors believed that 3,000 persons marking the passage of a religious observance and congregating in Portland to do so was news.”
Then you guys must go stark raving bonkers over Christmas...right? Right?
PBUT: piss be upon them.
Some of the comments are defending them or at least saying there’s an anti-Muslim hysteria. But here are two others...
>>Should have handled it differently? Duh! Fine, run the story about Ramadan. But put it on page 4 or someplace other than the front page on 9/11. At least PPH acknowledged the readers’ concerns.
Should be:
"We are sorry we offended you..."
The sky must be falling or something...Good!
Explains a lot.
Note to their papers' advertisers: Y'all must like to waste your money....
This was planned. The Chicago Tribune had some BS about Muslim teens as it’s lead story. The SF Chron had an article about anti Muslim sentiment.
Wikipedia’s entry on the PPH:
>>Its editorial board is generally viewed to have center-left political views. It endorsed the 2003 Iraq War, but has since criticized the war’s execution. In Maine’s 2006 campaign for governor it endorsed John Baldacci, the incumbent Democrat, who was reelected. In the 2004 presidential election, the paper endorsed Democrat John Kerry, who won Maine but lost the national election.
You pretty much hit it on the head. I got in a discussion and the guy I was talking to said that maybe with abortion, drug use and murders, we arent as civilized as Muslims. My reply was that they are so civilized, what with stoning, suicide bombing, slavery and demeaning treatment of women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.