Horse Feathers!
Berry Tramel is not the most popular guy today in the digital world. In a scuffle that began with a sports message board, he has concluded that anyone who participates in message boards is as guilty as someone who visits porn sites.
I’ve been asked at OKC Talk about this, and basically, my answer is this: I’ve done my best to embrace what many call “new media” and I’ve done so for several years. I recall all the way back in 1995 just as AOL hit 250,000 members, I was pressing to do a series of stories about the rise of the Internet. My editors were skeptical and questioned whether the World Wide Web wasn’t just another soon to be doomed fad akin to the news scroll channels that popped up on cable back in the early 1980s.
Quietly, without anyone at work knowing, I joined a police bulletin board (this is old school internet to be sure) to get ideas for when I was on the cop beat. Then, as I moved to covering City Hall and downtown development, I “lurked” message boards run by the city, then briefly by The Oklahoman. I came out, very carefully, and joined OKC Talk in 2004. Because of the uncertainty about such boards, I was very, very cautious on posting anything, though I did offer some harmless clarifications or answers about projects when such questions were posed to me.
Last year everything changed. Our online folks were beginning to have some luck explaining the importance of “new media.” And I was approached repeatedly about launching this blog. I was reluctant at first, not because I fear going online, but as to whether I could commit the time to creating an extra outlet for my writing and reporting. You can be the judge as to whether I’ve pulled it off.
I was also encouraged to increase my participation at OKC Talk and OKMet, though it was made clear to me that I’m out here, without a net (editors) representing The Oklahoman. Oh yeah, no pressure there.
And in this increased role, my work has been beaten up and flattered with praise. And that’s OK. And I’ve learned a lot more about what readers are interested in, and I’ve discovered new ways of reporting on stories – all because of these message boards.
So the question is, do I agree with Berry? I’ll let my continued involvement at OKC Talk answer that question.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
I understand that some people may have issues with Barry’s “rant,” but isn’t that his prerogative in this relatively new medium to what we used to call the “newspaper?” It is essentially an editorial piece, agree or disagree to your heart’s content.
What I find ironic is the criticism of him as a print reporter attempting to adapt to the on-line video format. Would these same critics be as harsh on some of our local t.v. anchors (experienced in the electronic media format) should they were “asked” to write a by-line for publication?
Tom,
I understand what you are saying about Berry Tramel’s video being an “editorial piece.” Frankly, some of his articles during the Hornet’s stay here (front page once or twice, as I recall) didn’t pan out, even though stated as “fact” (I’m thinking about a deal being struck with Geo. Shinn about the Hornets ownership). The point is, it’s hard to distinguish between editorials and “fact” reporting, sometime.
In any event, it must be acknowledged that, as member of the Fourth Estate, press reporters have much more “stature” than anonymous posters at talk forums do; with that stature comes a degree of responsibility, I think, to speak responsibly.
All this is aside from the fact that “press” reporters did not check out their sources when assuming that what THEY read on the internet was fact. The fake website wasn’t even a “talk forum” … it was just a fake website which someone set up on his own and which the 4th estate in Texas didn’t bother to check out before it “ran” with the story. Who’s responsible for that (by category), the print media or some talk forum?
More, I rather doubt that the constitutional “press” protections would likely extend to anonymous or or non-anonymous posters on talk forums, but that’s just my guess.
None of what I’ve said is meant to excuse ANYONE from the responsibilty associated with what they publish, be that on-line or in the print media. But, somehow, I’d like to think and hope that those in the print media would be very sensitive to the trust and responsibility which has been historically theirs — not to mention sensitivity to their own credibility and how their “fact” reports will be regarded, when they don’t.
If any of what I’ve said makes any sense at all.
Doug Loudenback
Steve, I don’t think you’re right when you say that Berry’s issues stemmed from a sports message board, though I may be mistaken. That will be explained in the remainder of this comment.
Tom,
I understand what you are saying about Berry Tramel’s video being an “editorial piece.” Frankly, some of his articles during the Hornet’s stay here (front page once or twice, as I recall) didn’t pan out, even though stated as “fact” (I’m thinking about a deal being struck with Geo. Shinn about the Hornets ownership) might also be deemed “editorial” pieces, as it turned out. The point is, it’s hard to distinguish between editorials and “fact” reporting, sometime.
In any event, it must be acknowledged that, as member of the Fourth Estate, press reporters have much more “stature” than anonymous posters at talk forums do; with that stature comes a degree of responsibility, I think, to speak carefully and responsibly.
All this is aside from the fact that “press” reporters did not check out their sources when assuming that what THEY read on the internet was fact. The fake website wasn’t even a “talk forum” … it was just a fake website which someone set up on his own and which some members of the 4th estate in Texas didn’t bother to check out before “running” with the story. Who’s responsible for that (by category), the print media or some talk forum?
More, I rather doubt that the constitutional “press” protections would likely extend to anonymous or or non-anonymous posters on talk forums, but that’s just my guess.
None of what I’ve said is meant to excuse ANYONE from the responsibility associated with what they publish, be that on-line or in the print media. But, somehow, I’d like to think and hope that those in the print media would be very sensitive to the trust and responsibility which has been historically and constitutionally theirs — not to mention sensitivity to their own credibility and how their “fact” reports will be regarded, when they don’t.
If any of what I’ve said makes any sense at all.
Doug Loudenback
I’ve posted a lengthier comment but somehow it didn’t stick. I’ve saved the text and can repost, if desired.
Tramel is a drain on the poorly run Oklahoman. It’s sad when the paper can’t take journalistic integrity as well and state they have an interest in certain businesses when writing stories, etc. Tramel would have better luck throwing a dart on a dartboard then getting his predictions correct. He’s a crybaby looking for a scapegoat because he’s not willing to adapt to 21st century technology aka the internet “new media”.
You can’t block the progression, it’s new and people don’t adapt well to change sometimes. Also, I can’t talk about the rest of the paper, but the sports columns really has a lot to be desired. They continually write about rumors and fact-less based stories. I’m tired of reading highschool newspaper quality writing in a state newspaper. Also writing stories over and over, we read it, time to find a new topic! Stop with the slang, jargon, stupid nicknames and poor grammar. Go out get some facts, interview people and print something worth reading. Tramel is a joke and so is a few others on the sports staff.
I couldn’t believe my ears, or eyes, watching the Tramel video posted on another of my favorite OKC blogs. I’ve respected Berry as a columnist for years, but, to me, that rant was completely off base, and passionately (see: hatefully) so.
I’ll write off this flagrant foul as a n00B mistake, and give him the benefit of the doubt (I think he’s earned it) , but it won’t be easy. And obviously I’ll have to at least consider using that video in the future as an extreme, local example of how not to present yourself online.