Making changes takes a little faith

Change.

Does anyone really like it? I know our readers really don’t.

Since we made changes to our features section the first part of

this month, I’ve received several calls and e-mails complaining about

the decision to move the Faith page from Page 2 to deeper inside the

paper.

The message of the callers was that we had relegated religion to a

less-than-important topic with our actions.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, let’s talk about the feature that we placed on Page 2 on

Saturdays instead of Faith.

The page is called Boomers and Beyond and it is dedicated to

activities and stories from the older set in town, something that was

missing from our pages in years past.

A large portion of the Daily Pilot readership falls in that older

category, so we believed it was time we gave them more reasons to

read the paper.

Just a side note: I have to admit that the title of the page

didn’t come from one of our newsroom staffers, but from Melissa

Adams, a Newport Beach library staffer.

Adams has been writing our Check It Out library book feature for

years. And one day she was in my office and we were talking about the

new feature page we wanted to start for seniors.

I mentioned to her that many Baby Boomers were now becoming

seniors themselves, but that they disliked that descriptor. So we

were trying to come up with a name for the page that would encompass

all those of advancing age.

You know, people who hit let’s say, 50, but they aren’t ready to

give up golf for shuffleboard yet.

That’s when she suggested the name Boomers and Beyond and it

stuck.

Thanks, Melissa.

Page 2 seemed like a natural place to start it. But even more, we

wanted to add to our religion coverage that already features the

great work of Cindy Trane Christeson’s long-running column The Moral

of the Story.

So I picked up a feature that we are doing in another of our

papers called In Theory. Each week, we will ask local clergyman some

of the burning questions of the day and get their feedback.

In addition to that, we will have an expanded faith calendar,

giving churches and religious groups a better shot at seeing their

activities get in the paper. In addition, we hope to expand the

religion coverage with stories on churches or church leaders or

church groups that will team up with our weekly features.

I think religious leaders will see more coverage not less,

something that is not possible to accomplish with the limited space

we have on Page 2.

So I know, change is hard. But I have faith, that in time, our

religious readers will see the benefits.

*

This week, we had some calls and debates in the newsroom that I’d

like to share.

A couple readers called to complain that we did not identify the

race of the suspect in the attempted robbery of the woman in Corona

del Mar. The police department said he was black, they said. Why

didn’t we do the same? Did we purposely keep it out?

Well the answer is yes, but not because we are trying to skew the

truth but because we are trying to play fair.

I’ve taken this subject up before but it bears repeating,

especially on the heels of all the discussion we’ve had in our pages

over race and the comments made by Dick Nichols.

As all mainstream newspapers do, we have polices regarding the

description of suspects. Here’s what it says:

“Often, our suspect descriptions convey little meaningful

information to the reader. For instance, to write that police are

looking for a 5-foot-6 inch Latino man with dark hair has little

value to the reader and, by itself, is unlikely to lead to his

apprehension. More often, it only serves to perpetuate the perception

that minorities appear in our pages only when there is crime

involved. The rule is as follows: you must have three items of

description in addition to height, weight and skin color to allow us

to describe a suspect.”

Our police reporter, Deepa Bharath, told me the suspect

information she had was that the assailant was black with a baseball

cap and leather jacket, a description that could fit thousands of

people and not enough to fit our policy criteria.

Under our rule, she would need his height, his weight, his

complexion and then three other descriptors like the ball cap, the

leather jacket and one more. Maybe he had a goatee or wore glasses or

had bad teeth. But we need some sort of distinguishing

characteristic.

The reasoning behind the rule is that instead of feeding

stereotypes on race, it is much better if we get detailed information

that could indeed help the public identify suspects.

The rule applies to all races, by the way, not just ethnic

minorities.

Hope that clears up any confusion and, as usual, I’d love to hear

your thoughts and comments.