News
Most Recently Answered Questions
Questions 11 - 20 of 491 (Page 2 of 50)Submitted by Roberta Dees from Charlotte
Q:Misspelled words do not offend me, even though I have been a copy editor. I question your cutline on Dr. King's picture, which says that he said, "We're free at last!" I believe it is misleading, because in fact, he said that if certain conditions were met, we would be able to say that. That if his little daughters were judged by their character, rather than the color of their skin. etc. On THAT day, we would all be able to say it "We are free at last."
A: We plead guilty. with regret. The caption that you mention appeared on our editorial pages in Friday's newspaper. Dr. Martin Luther King uttered those words as a dream, not reality. That's an error of substance that should be corrected. And it will be. Thank you.
Submitted by Jim from Charlotte, NC
Q:Rick, I do not have a question, just a comment regarding the most recent post about requiring comments about Observer articles to somehow identify themselves. That is a really bad idea. I agree some comments and posters are basically zealots (both to the left and to the right political ideology) and can be quite obnoxious. But forcing comments to be tied to a person's "real name" will stifle people from commenting. I am one who will not have comments tied to any public site linked back to my real identity. Heck, I even use a throw away email address for each registration, so that they cannot be linked and tracked. I value my privacy way too much to offer up that level of information. Plus - the Observer would benefit from being able to link online identities and do more advanced target marketing, hich may be good for you, but I do not care for it. The Observer sends too many spammy emails now as it is. Just my $.02. I hope you take it into consideration as you evaluate how to keep the nastiness online down to a minimum. Thanks for reading Rick and have a great day.
A: Thanks Jim (though I take it that this is not your real name!). You are the first person I've heard express opposition to identity out of fear of marketing. But I'm sure others share that fear. So, let me clear this up. If we began to require commenters to identify themselves, we would NOT use that information for commercial reasons. Comments are part of the "news" content of our site. No news content will be exploited for commercial purposes at the Observer. If you got an email offer from the Observer, it likely means that at some point you agreed to receive emails under prescribed circumstances. If you would like to stop such emails, simply go to the bottom of the email and you will see a link to unsubscribe. I will say one more thing about exercising privacy as a precaution. As you might imagine, my name gets printed and posted every day, multiple times of the day. That's been going on for many years. I don't experience any ill effects as the result of this fact. I understand why others worry that they would, but I think the fear is far out of proportion with reality.
Submitted by Jody from Greenville, NC
Q:I have a question in response to the prior question from Phil regarding proof reading. Who cares? I hope you are smart enough to figure out what is really being said and furthermore why waste your time complaining about a couple of grammatical or spelling errors.
A: Jody, thanks for looking past the typos. We still want to minimize their appearance in our stories. But you are right to point out that the substance of the story is even more important to scrutinize. We will work to keep the standards high on both counts.
Submitted by Phil from Charlotte, NC
Q:Often, the Observer's online content is littered with spelling and grammatical errors. Does anyone proofread this content or read the user comments that often viciously attack the error?
A: With Web sites, newspapers have a huge new advantage that heretofore was enjoyed only by radio and television news. That advantage is immediacy. We can now report news as soon as it happens. This quality, however, brings with it the peril of not having every word and headline polished as we provide you news, minute by minute. Anyone who has watched a TV reporter stumble on pronounciations, titles and other details during a live broadcast will get the point. I would think that most of the grammatical errors you see are attributable to this fast pace. That said, our goal always is to get it right, even as we are working to get it to you quickly. So, yes, we do edit what goes online. I believe we are getting better at this as we gain more experience with Internet-first publishing. Same as you, I sometimes come across readers who are pointing to such errors in their comments. We heed that heads-up as soon as we see it. But, no, we are not able to review every comment posted. In the course of a day, literally thousands of comments are posted throughout our site. We provide a button by every story to allow a reader to alert us to objectionable comments. There may well be a way to alert us to errors more quickly, too. It's something we'll discuss. I would think that a lot of English majors like me would be happy to report a grammar violation in a story.
Submitted by Lance Woodie from Charlotte, NC
Q:The Observer's news judgment often leaves me baffled. On Friday, Aug. 20, for example, close-out specialist . . . Ollie's opened in Gastonia and got two-thirds of a page with 2 large photos on the Business page. The same day Wal-Mart opened a new Supercenter employing 320 people in Indian Land near Ballantyne. That story got only a brief with no photo on Page 2B. Seems to me the Wal-Mart store has considerably more enonomic impact and deserves at least as much attention as Ollie's. Why the big disparity in coverage?
A: No need to overthink this. I'd say that the opening of any large store merits attention these days. For the record, the Wal-Mart actually opened on Wednesday, and Ollie's opened on Thursday. And we carried a longer story of the Wal-Mart opening on CharlotteObserver.com. You can see it at http://bit.ly/bYeo5C. I'm glad that we noted both of these openings. Sometimes, similar events are noted differently simply because of random circumstances. It could be about the availability of a photographer or reporter. Or it could be about the timing of the event. Ideally, we would calibrate our coverage to give precise weight to each event. In real life, however, that's just not possible in all cases.
Submitted by Jennifer from Charlotte, NC
Q:CNN has a great article on how news sites (http://bit.ly/d11iNu) are attempting to rein in disgusting comments on their articles, primarily by posting a user's real name with their comments or having the person use their Facebook page to comment. Personally, I'd love to see the Observer do either of these things. I see the value of commenting on news articles, but when the comments are anonymous, they quickly spiral into nastiness or political comments that have nothing to do with the article. So, any plans to link real names or Facebook accounts to Observer comments?
A: Jennifer, thanks for noting this story. It is a good survey of the range of efforts to make comments more civil. The good news is that a relatively few users post insulting or abusive comments. The bad news is that these few are quite persistent. We've become more aggressive about removing such comments and banning repeat violators. You can help by hitting the "report abuse" button when you see a problem. We are also exploring other strategies that could help. The idea of requiring all commenters to identify themselves is very appealing. At the same time, we know that many people would choose not to participate out of concern that it would be frowned on by employers or others. This much we know. Many readers of the site do appreciate comments that add to the discussion. The key is maintaining civility in the process.
Submitted by Cynthia Manshack from Monroe, NC
Q:What editorial purpose is served by printing Letters to the Editor such as the one from D.L. Brown in today's Forum (7/13)? This level of incivility is common in the Comments section attached to news articles, but seems ver much out of place on the Editorials page.
A: For the rest of you, Mr. Brown suggested that Arch Wakefield be loaned $5 to open a lemonade stand to "be in charge of something." This was in response to Mr. Wakefield's suggestion in a letter to the editor that junk mailers pay higher postal rates. Our letters editor thought readers would find Mr. Brown's suggestion humorous. Sorry that you didn't. But guess what? Mr. Wakefield did. He sent another letter to the editor saying that he's launched the Junk Mail Lemonade Emporium. While Mr. Wakefield went on, I won't. But you can read his full retort at http://bit.ly/aTHt0u
Submitted by Lance Woodie from Charlotte, NC
Q:During the past week the Observer published two stories about traveler delays being caused by installation of a full body scanner at Checkpoint A at Charlotte/Douglas International. The checkpoint is closed during the work, but neither story told us when travelers can expect it to reopen. Isn't that newsworthy?
A: The second story we published said the work should be finished "next month." We should have been more specific. Here is the latest. The checkpoint is due to to reopen Aug. 7. In addition to installing the new body scanner, the project will expand the area by about 2,000 feet. When the project is done, there will be four security lines at Checkpoint A - one more than it had before the expansion. By the way, I caught a flight a couple of weeks ago and tested a tip that I've heard several times (and was also mentioned in our story): The lines for security checks are often shortest at Checkpoint D, which is where travelers on international flights are generally directed. Sure enough, I passed through very quickly. Once you are through security, you can connect to whichever concourse you need. Just don't tell anybody else, OK?
Submitted by Rick Thames from Charlotte, NC
Q:More tips from the editor on how to contact the Observer. What if you need to reach us about withholding delivery of your paper while you are on vacation? Other concerns about delivery?
A: This has become fast and easy on CharlotteObserver.com. I use it and like it. I’m sure you will, too. Simply go to our home page, click on “Home delivery” at the top of the page and then choose the category of help you need. You can temporarily stop delivery while you are on vacation. You can start a subscription. You can lodge a complaint about delivery (no paper, wet paper, late paper). Moving? This is the place to take care of a change of address. Of course, you can still call, too (800-532-5350).
Submitted by Nancy Smaragdis from Charlotte NC
Q:Who was the original Dr. Traffic for the Charlotte Observer? When was his column published?
A: The original Dr. Traffic was Diane Whitacre. Her column was first published in the mid-1990s. It focused on Charlotte's growing traffic and road building in the region.
