Media: Former JS newsie claims that the ENTIRE Journal Star is conspiring to protect Schock

Is there a vast conspiracy within the Journal Star to make Aaron Schock look good?

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. But that else am I supposed to think when I have a former insider who keeps telling me that the weak coverage of Mr. Schock is the fault of many people, and not just one?

I’ve given reporter Karen McDonald not a small amount of grief in recent weeks over the kid gloves the paper has been giving State Rep. Aaron Schock over his now abandoned position that the United States ought to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Here’s a recap in a nutshell: McDonald’s original article didn’t mention this. A Springfield columnist read the transcript and wrote a critical piece. Jim McConoughey held a press conference criticizing Schock. Newspapers and bloggers all over Illinois and the rest of the nation were astounded by Schock’s position. It was the biggest news out of the campaign since it started. The Journal Star hardly mentioned it. McDonald — the lead reporter in the 18th District race — didn’t report on it at all until Schock issued a statement backing away from that position.

I mentioned all this in this post praising the Springfield State Journal Register for what I consider superior coverage of a Peoria-based politician.

The first commenter was Elaine Hopkins, a former reporter for the Journal Star, and now a blogger herself. She said this:

As for Karen McDonald, you have no idea, and neither do I, how heavily her stories were edited or cut. So stop blaming her. Several editors read every political story before it runs in the JS. Unlike a blog, a daily newspaper is the product of a large group of people, and everyone has some input.

I assume that articles are edited. I did the newspaper thing on and off for 20 years, and I do not recall one single case in which an editor/editors took out the most newsworthy item in a story. Is Elaine seriously suggesting that sometime after Karen McDonald handed in her article, that some editors got together and decided that this part about how Aaron Schock wants to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan needed to be removed?

Apparently, yes.

I personally have had controversial sections of stories I turned in cut out later by editors! It’s not unusual.

The JS operates 18 hrs a day. Reporters who come to work at 9 a.m. can hardly be expected to stick around until 9 p.m. to see the final edit. Or give up a vacation or weekend day to check it. Sometimes reports from 2 or more cities are combined by editors into one story, which may have happened in the Schock story.

Let me say it again: the JS is a “group-think” operation, so individuals should not be singled out except in extraordinary situations, and then only if you know the facts. The same is true of the editorial board — which is why the editorials are not signed. The stand an editorial takes is a group decision. A newspaper is not a blog! That is its strength as well as its weakness, I guess.

That said, I agree with your criticism of the JS for not reporting the Schock comment in a timely manner– just not with your attack on the reporter who may be blameless.

Apparently, no one at the PJS can use the telephone to confer with reporters about their stories. At every newspaper I’ve worked at, its considered policy to edit an article while the reporter is present, in order to get the input from the person who actually gathered the information before major decisions on what to cut gets made.

Granted, this consultation didn’t happen all the time, often for the reasons Elaine mentioned. I usually made it a point to grad an editor and make ‘em do the editing while I was there, especially if I thought there might be a problem with content.

In the news media, there is a difference between newspapers known as “reporters’ newspapers” and “editors’ newspapers.” At reporters’ newspapers, the reporters are the stars and editors tread lightly when it comes to changing copy. At editor’s newspapers, once the article is handed in, anything goes. The PJS is an editor’s paper. Being an editor’s paper works for the New York Times. It doesn’t work for the PJS.

One of three things happened here:

1. McDonald wrote the article without any mention of the nukes to Taiwan issue, and the editors had nothing to do with it. This means McDonald screw up and missed the most newsworthy part of her assignment.
2. McDonald wrote the article with a mention of the nukes to Taiwan issue, and some editor took it out. This means an editor somewhere in the process doesn’t recognize real news.
3. McDonald wrote the article with a mention of the nukes to Taiwan issue, but there was a “group think” decision to take it out of the story. I simply refuse to believe that every single editor at the PJS is too stupid to see the newsworthiness of Schock’s nukes-to-Taiwan position. Which means that there really is deliberate effort at the Journal Star to protect and promote Schock.

If it’s 2 or 3, then I would say this to McDonald: It’s your name and your reputation on the line here. If you are turning in good articles that are being turned into mush, the impetus is on you to protect your reporting from being abused by those higher up the editorial food chain.

NOTE: Edited to fix incorrect blockquote, and to add a better lede.

Tags: 18th District, Aaron Schock, Elaine Hopkins, Journal Star, Taiwan