Email Exchange: "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student"?
From: REDACTED
Sent: Mon 9/28/2009 10:24 AM
To: Lee, Henry; Proctor, Steve
Subject: "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student"
Per your article "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student" (http://feeds.sfgate.com/click.phdo?i=603e98bdc62e4ecfd596ce49b34a7712), how can you say "authorities said today," when authorities actually confirmed this two weeks ago, as reported by The Examiner (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/SF-State-student-is-suicide-victim-59190772.html) and the SF State paper (http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013558.html) on September 14? Is there any requirement for reporters at the Chronicle to read local media, or to even Google a story before writing it? Please tell me this was just a technical glitch, or I will be sorely tempted to cancel my subscription to your paper -- it's not worth paying for this kind of sloppy journalism when I can apparently find better in the SF State student paper.
Subject: RE: "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:26:23 -0500
From: REDACTED
To: REDACTED
Hi REDACTED,
We cover a wide area, encompassing numerous counties and cities. At times, we may not be able to provide information at the same time as other media. Conversely, we often provide comprehensive, exclusive coverage of matters of wide interest before other media outlets, many of which cite us for breaking that information.
To the extent that you are disappointed that we did not report this first, I understand. But I trust you will see that I and other reporters always effort to provide updates as soon as feasible.
Henry Lee
SF Chronicle
From: REDACTED
Sent: Mon 9/28/2009 11:13 AM
To: Lee, Henry; Proctor, Steve
Subject: RE: "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student"
Thanks for your explanation, Mr. Lee.
To be clear, my dissapointment is not that you were not "first." My disappointment lies in that fact that you and your editors seem unaware this this story is old news. That is where I see the sloppiness. I must ask again -- is there any Chronicle rule or even recommendation that Chronicle reporters be familiar with the reporting in other local media? Or that you even Google a news item?
To your point on how other media outlets cite the Chronicle for breaking news, why does the Chronicle not reciprocate and credit other organizations who beat you to the punch? It seems unfair that the street only runs one way.
And, finally, why say "authorities said today" when authorities actually "said" two weeks ago? To say "authorities said today" seems like you're trying to imply this is breaking news when, in fact, it is not.
Subject: RE: "Man found ablaze was S.F. State student"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:32:22 -0500
From: REDACTED
To: REDACTED
Hi,
Here's the background on how this story got reported today. A reader e-mailed me, wondering if we had written any updates since the initial story penned by my colleague, Carolyn Said, who was working that Sunday. We have a rotating series of reporters who work on weekends.
My primary beat is morning breaking news and East Bay cops and courts. I personally remembered very little about this case and so had to catch up myself. When I got the name from the medical examiner today, I naturally put the name into Google and found the various news stories in other media. I do not know why we did not report the name earlier; it might be because we do not emphasis coverage of suicides.
Since we at the Chronicle did not follow this case on Day 2, we certainly did not have the independent knowledge of the name to enter into any search databases.
We will always use the word "today" to make clear when we got this information. We certainly didn't get this info last week; as such we use the word "today." I technically could have repeated the word "today" when the medical examiner told me, today, that the manner of death (i.e. homicide vs. suicide vs. accident), remains unknown two weeks later. But we use the word "today" as soon as possible.
For incremental updates on stories such as these, it is virtually impossible to give credit to whoever is "first." Often, a local wire service might put out the information; when that happens all Bay Area media will confirm the info and then report it. It would be difficult to ascertain, say, who may have reported something first if there may have been a simultaneous release by more than one outlet. If a factoid is easily confirmable with a phone call, then we do our own reporting. A news story in which we credit another outlet usually involves a larger, more substantive issue or involves using a snippet of info or an interview that only that outlet developed, i.e. "the Associated Press, citing sources, reported.." It would again be unwieldy to say, Ch. 5 broke this on TV, based on a Bay City News report, based on a student newspaper who saw this on foreign media" or "This was broken by the Times just two minutes before we reported it, but we would have had it earlier had it not been for a system malfunction." This has happened at times. But we just report it, plain and simple. Sometimes there is a chain of successive reporting, sometimes we have independent snippets that forward the story beyond other media, sometimes there is a at-the-same-time release of info.
Granted, we can't cover every suicide or robbery or carjacking that occurs in the Bay Area on a day-to-day basis; similarly I get emails from readers inquiring about the status of trials or court cases that I myself broke "first" yet was unaware that there had been a guilty plea or sentencing. I personally produce quite a bit of stories a day; I trust you understand that as each day passes, the chances that we are not there instantly to report an update increase. Readers who email me with questions or tips are beneficial in this regard.
