About that malpractice case
One of the things I like best about our Internet site is that it tells us every day which stories we have posted are most popular.
Anyone care to guess what sat at the top of roost yesterday?
Every day I get at least one or two phone calls from outraged readers critical of our decision to run a particular story or the way it was displayed in the newspaper.
Usually they accuse us of trying to sensationalize the story. They always want to know why such stories have to be in the paper. The answer has many facets, but one of them is this: That’s what people read.
In yesterday’s paper we ran a story about a malpractice case being heard in the Media Courthouse. Testimony is continuing. So is our coverage.
Let me just say that it involves a particularly delicate claim. And, I might point out, the doctor accused is adamantly denying the plaintiff’s allegation.
We could have splashed it all over our front page. We did not. We could have used some salacious headline, or used any number of double entendres. We simply tried to present the information in a straightforward way.
I suppose you could make the argument over whether the suit should have been covered at all.
Yesterday more than 3,100 people went to our Web site to read the story.
I would assume they’ll be back today for the update.
One of the things I like best about our Internet site is that it tells us every day which stories we have posted are most popular.
Anyone care to guess what sat at the top of roost yesterday?
Every day I get at least one or two phone calls from outraged readers critical of our decision to run a particular story or the way it was displayed in the newspaper.
Usually they accuse us of trying to sensationalize the story. They always want to know why such stories have to be in the paper. The answer has many facets, but one of them is this: That’s what people read.
In yesterday’s paper we ran a story about a malpractice case being heard in the Media Courthouse. Testimony is continuing. So is our coverage.
Let me just say that it involves a particularly delicate claim. And, I might point out, the doctor accused is adamantly denying the plaintiff’s allegation.
We could have splashed it all over our front page. We did not. We could have used some salacious headline, or used any number of double entendres. We simply tried to present the information in a straightforward way.
I suppose you could make the argument over whether the suit should have been covered at all.
Yesterday more than 3,100 people went to our Web site to read the story.
I would assume they’ll be back today for the update.
Comments