Some Guy in 734

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.

Tony... this got glossed over before, so I'll ask again. Surely an editor who doesn't edit deserves to be just as conspicuously culpable. What discipline was meted out to the editor? Do the arm chair (desk chair?) critics get the same chance to publicly dissect the editor's job performance, speculate about pay cuts, and be reassured that the editor has been sufficiently humiliated?

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.

well here you go, this ought to solve further problems... Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists By Jana Winter FOXNews.com (myFOXDetroit.com) - A Michigan lawmaker wants to license reporters to ensure theyre credible and vet them for good moral character. Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets--traditional, online and citizen generated--and an even greater amount misinformation. Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government, he said. He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics dont know what theyre talking about and theyre working for publications hes never heard of, so he wants to install a process thatll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust. We have to be able to get good information, he said. We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source. Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with disgruntles politicians going after reporters who dont paint them in a positive light. They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional. Its misguided and its never going to fly, said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession. The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the state legislatures Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform. Its a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association. Ive not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor its usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much. According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of: --"Good moral character and demonstrate they have industry ethics standards acceptable to the board. --Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent. --Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information. --Awards or recognition related to being a reporter. --Three or more writing samples. Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee. The bill does not prevent reporters who are not licensed by the state from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary. Patterson conceded that he didnt actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He says hes winding down his two decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office. I would argue the first amendment feels otherwise, said MacLaren. Hes entitled to his thoughts. The first amendment protects those as well. Whats the definition of a reporter? I havent been able to find out? Whats a reporter? Whats a journalist? Patterson said. I thought you had to have a degree in journalism but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist. Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters credentials, background and experience. Im talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out, Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court. The senator said that he feels that theres no way to tell whos a legitimate journalist and whos just rewriting other reporters reporting and twisting facts. He is right, the problem is How do I know where Im getting my news from? said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate--non professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists--and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press. But even though McBride agreed with Pattersons concerns that people dont know which news outlets to trust she said the bill introducing government-licensed reporters is just a bad idea. Plus, she said that governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process--and that these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional. I think that his concern is a legitimate one, McBride said, But youre not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.

David Kempner

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

Annarbor.com, This is sad news. Lon is a wonderful and talented writer and a fine person. For you to impose "internal discipline" on him and axe his column is yet another reason why your organization is such a pathetic failure. Surely, this was just an unfortunate mistake. Over the years, I had gradually lost respect for the Ann Arbor News -- seriously, endorsing W. for President not once, but twice!! It took much less time to conclude that the on line reincarnation is a total lost cause. The residents of this great town deserve much, much better.

Ricebrnr

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

@Matt Cooper, You mean that a company or site that invites comments, that aspires to certain expectations and standards (journalitic integrity), and that grew from the ashes of a local leading news source shouldn't expect those comments regarding their perceived lack of journalistic standards? As Steve Martin would put it; "Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!" Cheers

Matt Cooper

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 10:40 p.m.

LOL at all of you!!! If you don't like the reporting, or the editing, or the photography, or the correctness or lack thereof of anything on this website, go somewhere else!!! Annarbor.com doesn't revolve around you.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

Sounds like a show is being made of this incident while the moderators who delete comments for purely political reasons (without any explanation on which policies were violated) go unchecked and undisciplined. I'm starting to think that the readers need to create a watchdog blog about inaccurate and biased writing on annarbor.com, and keep track of what comments are deleted by which moderators. It should be pretty easy to document and profile the moderation practices of specific moderators if enough people participate. Then more specific and accurate complaints showing politically biased behavior patterns can be made. That's probably the only thing that will create the pressure necessary to solve the problem. (And if this comment is deleted, I'm just going to be even more inspired than ever to implement this sort of blog.)

John Galt

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.

I'm more concerned about the motives behind the recent articles. They appear to me to be based upon personal political views and designed to support his ideology. This is often the case in the Ann Arbor media. Everything is "spun" for political effect. Now we are seeing a "journalist" caught creating dramatic emotionism to support his rich man vs. poor man. White vs. Black leftwing views. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

longtime reader

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.

I see you have now adopted a policy of editing the content of annarbor.com. I am aware of this because last night I posted a comment which has not been published. Could this be because the comment was critical of Mr. Dearing, his boss Longfellow and Longfellow's companions in outrage and indignation?

longtime reader

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:25 p.m.

Longfellow has been a principal critic of Lon Horwedel and his criticism has some merit; much less however than he obviously believes it to have. What does not have merit is his presumptuous manner of dictating what should be done and expressing his 'satisfaction' with the actions taken by the editor. Since Longfellow is unwilling to have his name made public while at the same time dictating the only satisfactory outcome of the situation, perhaps one can conclude that Longfellow is actually an employee or contractor of annarbor.com and is vindicating a personal grudge against Mr. Horwedel--or angling for his job. And perhaps Mr. Dearing should consider whether his own job is in jeopardy, since Longfellow and his companions in outrage and indignation appear to be running annarbor.com. Longfelllow now graciously suggests that we put an end to this matter, presumably since he has attained his objective: to humiliate a talented man who made a mistake but who has provided this community with many meaningful and intersting 'Reflections' over the years; and to dictate what punishment should be meted out. Since Longfellow has now become the avatar of the highest journalistic standards, we presumably can look forward to his continuing critique of the extent to which annarbor.com is living up to those standards. This will require a very substantial commitment of time on his part, since there is much to be criticized. But Longfellow seems to have sufficient time on his hands, so I am hopeful that he, and his fellow critics, will be able to raise the journalistic standards of annarbor.com through their astute observations, fearless criticisms and instructions on personnel matters. There is much work to be done.

Alan Benard

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 8:27 p.m.

@Alan, our normal practice is that once something is posted on the site, it remains there permanently. If we make an error in the story, we correct the error and acknowledge that, but the story stays up. This instance is different. Knowing that the premise of the column wasn't true and that everything coming out of that premise wasn't true, we do not think it is appropriate to keep it on the site. I'm currently enjoying private correspondence with Amalie Nash, your news director, who states that your organization's Hutaree coverage was in no way faulty. My recollection is that the original bulletins you ran contained factually incorrect information. She states that the newsroom was aware that some reporting they were seeing from other outlets carried unsubstantiated information which turned out to not be true, but that AnnArbor.com didn't link or cite to it. We cannot verify who is correct, because the original report was removed -- which is, per you, an abnormal event. I recall commenting at the time that I disagreed with the idea of removing that first report. Amalie states it was appropriate to remove it once AnnArbor.com completed and published its first-hand reporting. I remember what I remember and I have no reason to doubt my recollection in the absence of your first report. It certainly seems appropriate to mention that your staff thinks I have it wrong, in the hopes that my mentioning it -- rather then your staff -- prevents it from appearing self-serving on your part. I've eaten my words before and would do it again, but for this curious unprinting.

Bill Wilson

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.

I'm going to make one more post on the subject, and then I think it's time to put this behind us. I happen to know the entire story, and no, I will not share it, but this is not the case of a witness who simply "got his facts wrong." It should suffice to disclose just one element: the writer took others to task for not get involved when the elderly gentleman did not awaken, yet he himself did not bother to get out of his own car. There seems to be a number of fingers pointed at the editing process, and while I am satisfied that steps have being taken to ensure this does not happen again, the important thing for us to remember is that when the matter came to the editor's attention, he acted appropriately. Many of us (myself included) are believers in second chances. The writer in question has been given one: his employment was not terminated. But please, enough of blaming the victims. One person carries the blame in this mess, and if he'd like to face the guilty party, he need only look into the mirror.

Rob T

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

I'm disappointed by the editorial decision to remove this story. I think the community and Lon would be better served if the story remained on AnnArbor.com with a correction. I tracked down Google's cached copy of Lon's article, and I did not find his offense as grave as the tone of your article and the comments would suggest. He misunderstood a scene he witnessed, and no doubt it would have been appropriate to confirm that he indeed witnessed a death. I imagine that had a third-party witness misunderstood the scene, the article would have remained with an amendment. Only because the witness was on staff is this even an issue. No doubt journalists should be held to a higher standard, but I don't think the punishment fits the crime, particularly in the context of a reflection. I'd encourage other commenters to read the offending article, and I'd strongly encourage the editors to consider reinstating Lon's column.

aareader

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.

Wonderwoman I submit... BIG DIFFERENCE between the "Squall's" Forum and a professional journalistic organization like the AA News. If "forum" is to be a place where students are writing about subjects from their perspective and maybe learning how to write and letting others critique then there is some leeway given. In the professional world where a newspaper makes it reputation on reporting news as accurately as possible, employees writing article are expected to meet a higher standard. Students will learn from forums to keep improving their craft to get to the standards expected in respected organizations like the AA News.

aareader

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

Thanks for your vigilance and being honorable. To me this is a sign of an organization that is interested in facts and a correct news story. We all understand headlines designed to catch a readers attention but do expect a factual account to the best of the research available at the time. And we expect corrections or update to news stories. You have done your job and continue to have my trust that when a story is presented I have the expectation it is based on fact.... not opinion or "you decide" type journalism. You continue to have my support

Ricebrnr

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

And yet in instances where I point out that the reporting is inaccurate, unfair and sensational, I get excuses and the issues aren't addressed and/or the posts where I call these things out are deleted. Thus where is the mission statement or standards for us to see? Because I think the majority of us feel its a moving target...

Mike D.

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.

Tony, you say, "We have 11 editors and copy editors and everything written by our staff is read by at least one of them prior to being published." Isn't that a bit misleading? It's my understanding that the majority of content on this site isn't written by staff (it's community bloggers, freelancers, etc.) and that much of that content posts first and gets "a quick read" later. At least that's what a prospective writer was told when discussing employment with AnnArbor.com. He had the integrity to go work somewhere else with an actual editorial process.

annarborgirl77

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

Ok. He did make a mistake. Yes, we expect facts from news articles. The mistake has been corrected and an apology has been given. Even the news isn't perfect. Get out and enjoy your long weekend people!

demistify

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 9:52 p.m.

Lon Horwedel wrote a fable for the sake of its moral. Apparently, he fudged some facts to tidy up the fable, so that it deviated from a news story into "reality" fiction. Some misstatements were spotted and he suffered consequences. Case closed. What I find more disturbing is Alan Goldsmith's insistence that because the moral of the fable was so laudable the truth should have been suppressed.

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

Yah following in the footsteps of such great news orgs like NBC's Dateline. So they embellished a little. The GM truck blowing up was so much more rivetting than the truth after all. BTW are AA.com's journalism standards or mission statement posted somewhere like the moderation guidelines? I'd like to see exactly what AA.com is or aspires to be from the horse's mouth.

ChrisCollins

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

Just FYI, Lon is slated to teach photojournalism classes at Washtenaw Community College in the fall. Seems like he's the right man for the job. I don't see any problem with fabricating a little so that the story is more interesting. It's a time-honored tradition in the field of journalism.

mike from saline

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:11 p.m.

Note to Patricia Smith. I believe Mike Barnicle was accused of plagiarism, not lying, not making things up.

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.

Well if this is in fact a 'news organization' then I sure hope we'll no longer see poor excuses when the readers point out the lack of "more probing questions" that should've been asked or followed up on in the future. Sorry can't have it both ways. You either have journalistic standards and are a news organization or you are just a blog. I guess that means I have freee reign to continue questioning the reporting then...

Alan Benard

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 9:57 a.m.

Tony: We don't care how much experience you all have. The very experienced Ann Arbor News editorial staff was notorious for extremely sloppy copy editing. Major boners on the front page. Misspellings in the graph slipped in to localize wire copy. Names wrong in captions. We care about how you copy edit and fact check this site today. I also believe that co-mingling unedited blog copy with your edited content is a profoundly bad idea, even if you can hide behind the third-party content provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (As the anonymous comments attached to edited articles similarly drag your publication down.)And I strongly believe you must not remove articles once you have published them. A print publication cannot unprint its daily product. If you use the Web to unprint something you got flat out wrong because you jumped the gun (the Hutaree coverage is a particularly horrific example of this) or because it is embarrassing, or even libelous (as in the current example), you are undermining the very reason for journalism -- creating a record of daily current events as they were objectively understood by a trained observer. At a meta level, we must be able to view the total history of your electronically printed output without deletion or revision, with appropriate corrections attached after the fact. To not do so is a fatal blow to your integrity.

Bill Wilson

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.

It relates because the AA News supported the idea of no prior review of the student newspaper, students monitoring themselves with a student editor and disreputable information gathering techniques that clearly weren't thoroughly supervised. I'll comment briefly, as this seems off-topic to me. I did as you asked, and read the piece, and the comments. I still don't see the connection. Student news agencies are funded by the public. While I support your right to voice your opinion in that process, we are... a republic. Our representatives listen to our views, and make their decisions based on the rule of law. AnnArbor.com is a private organization, and they have their own internal process for making decisions. As to the story, one staff member commented in support of the student writers, but this was not the author of the piece, and the staff member clearly said the opinion expressed was her own. The author, Janet Miller, took no side and voiced no opinion: everyone had their say.

ILJ

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.

"We have 11 editors and copy editors and everything written by our staff is read by at least one of them prior to being published." The choice of words here is interesting. Notice he doesn't say "vetted" or "examined" or "scrutinized" or even "edited." The stories are simply "read." As if that's all that journalism editing requires. Good editing requires much more than reading. And the best organizations do not allow a story to be published after being "read" by a single editor. People who have been working in print journalism "10 or 20 years" know this. I still wonder if Lon's column was edited by anyone before it was posted. I know that his "flower pedals" was not corrected to "flower petals" until I pointed it out... AFTER it was already published. So I conclude that either it was not edited before publication, or it was edited very poorly.

Madhatter

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.

In my opinion, annarbor.com needs to step up to be a leading news organization in this community. I think a lot of the stories are underdeveloped. I was impressed by the FOIA Friday article I read today. It clearly shows investigative journalism that isn't afraid of government and "doing the right thing" by fully investigating the situation. Stories that play on emotions and examples of illogical and logical fallacies to persuade others are not the type of journalism we need. What this community needs is a return to old fashioned fact-based stories. No added drama, no taking sides, and definately no spin. I see a mixture of stories in annarbor.com. I think some show a bias of the author or they may not properly show both sides to a story in a balanced manner, some are excellent with very fact based and impartial showing both sides, and other stories are just a waste of time. I would encourage annarbor.com to focus it's stories on fact-based stories that show BOTH sides of an argument. Please do not try to persuade a reader with one sided stories, that will lose the respect of your readers. We see too many one sided stories on cable news. We need stories that will expose truths, show courage, and allow us to make our own decisions.

Susan Simon

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 7:23 a.m.

Lon is a high integrity person who cares about others. He is a great father and a talented photographer. I have enjoyed reading his reflections which clearly are his perceptions on things that occur in life. Last I checked, even genuine, high integrity people are human and sometimes make mistakes. A correction could have been acknowledged minus the public humiliation. That too is an act of integrity or in this case lack thereof.

Some Guy in 734

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.

(Apologies for the orphan at the end. I'm writing this on my iPod and that was a rogue bit of text that escaped me.)

Some Guy in 734

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.

Tony-- "This column did go through our normal editing process, and in retrospect, we wish we had asked more probing questions about the column during that editing." Parsing it further, it seems we have not just the original sin of commission but a sin of omission, too. Now that everybody has had a chance to take a swing at Mr. Horwedel, I trust that annarbor.com will be just as forthright about naming which one of the 11 editors allowed the column through. When people Google Mr. Horwedel's name, this is going to come up. Surely an editor who doesn't edit deserves to be just as conspicuously culpable. What discipline was meted out to the editor? Do the arm chair (desk chair?) critics get the same chance to publicly dissect the editor's job performance, speculate about pay cuts, and be reassured that the editor has been sufficiently humiliated? so we can all tut-tut over the disciplinary measures handed out there.

racerx

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 3:24 a.m.

Thank you! Lon had sent me a very unflattering email after I replied, here on-line, about his story about Tiger Woods. I finally had to basically cuss him out and just ignored his relpy. I thought nothing of it at the time, but the lenegths he went to contact me and reply just because I disagreed with him was unsettling. Gee, now that I think about this story, I really wonder if he ever met Tiger Woods as he claimed in that story. Mmmm....or did he know Tiger just because he golfs too?

ILJ

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 3:23 a.m.

Thank you, longtime reader. You encapsulated for me exactly what I find so distasteful about this episode. There was a huge failure in the editorial process, where editors failed to rein in someone who mixes journalism and creative writing in the form of a column. It's their job to filter what goes into the publication and make sure it's up to their standards BEFORE it's published. Yet their solution to this problem is to publicly embarrass the writer, who has long been one of the best parts of the Ann Arbor News/AnnArbor.com publication, and boast about upholding great journalistic standards. Ugh. They could have chosen to simply run a detailed correction. But that would have indicated that there was a flaw in the editorial process. And they didn't want to take any blame for this; they put it all on the writer. It's not entirely Lon's fault that "untrue" information was published on AnnArbor.com. If his punishment is a very public banishment from the publication, I wonder what the punishment is for the editor(s) whose job it was to edit his column. Apparently NOT very public banishment from the publication. Not fair. Or maybe there is no editor to publicly embarrass because no editor was filtering Lon's column before it went up on the site. Scary.

Macabre Sunset

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:48 a.m.

Why make something racial about this? The examples I chose were the closest to what Lon did (I have no idea what race he is, don't particularly care). And the character on The Wire who played that role was white. Are you *the* disgraced Patricia Smith? If so, I hope you aren't trying to justify your fraud on the basis of race. I don't agree with Tony. While Lon may have learned his lesson, the fact remains that he felt his politics were more important than his contribution to the public record. What differentiates a news organization from a blog or a magazine or a film or a novel is that a news organization creates a public record. It's supposed to be an honest record. Not one that makes political statements by fudging facts. A hundred years from now, researchers will look at newspapers from today and trust that they reflect what actually happened. I don't feel that Tony is taking that responsibility seriously by looking at Lon's behavior as one isolated case. It's like the difference between what Pete Rose did and what Alex Rodriguez did. Rodriguez cheated as an individual, and is paying a price. Rose cheated against the integrity of baseball itself, and cannot be forgiven.

Sparky79

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 11:19 p.m.

So AnnArbor.com will remove Horwedel's column due to untrue information, yet you will continue to splash all over the front page any story any website/media outlet (and I use the term "media" loosely) posts citing "sources close to the situation" on BIG TEN EXPANSION!!! which all turn out to be false and NOT remove those (i.e. the story on the Big Ten sending offers to Missouri, Nebraska, etc...)? Oooookaayyy....

Patricia Smith

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 10:09 p.m.

@Macabre Sunset: Don't forget the white transgressors--Stephen Glass for one, and especially Mike Barnicle, who lives to lie again on MSNBC. Funny how you plucked out the African-Americans and held them (us) up to the critical light...

longtime reader

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 9:27 p.m.

Great newspapers such as the New York Times publish corrections daily. People make mistakes. Mistakes acknowledged and corrected are part of journalism. Lon Horwedel was making a point. There is an enormous disparity in our society between the way we treat the wealthy and famous and the way we treat the poor, many of whom are minorities. There appears to be an effort by management of annarbor.com to distance itself from a political point of view that some of its readers might find offensive. In doing so it has publicly humiliated one of the most talented and original journalists on its staff and deprived its readership of the enjoyment of those talents. Given the rather limited claim to excellence that annarbor.com can make, it can ill afford to do this. It appears to have been a response to a group of commentators who feel that they are somehow entitled to determine how personnel matters at annarbor.com are handled. Management's failure to provide appropriate editorial oversight is being addressed by blaming the journalist in the most harsh and public way and by implication congratulating themselves on their high journalistic standards. This does not give annarbor.com credibility.

Wonderwoman

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:40 p.m.

@Longfellow Please read the article below, and read all of the comments attached. http://www.annarbor.com/news/dexter-high-school-newspaper-the-squall-causes-storm-over-stories/ It relates because in theory, the AA News advocated for students to govern themselves without any supervision. In action, however, the AA News sided with Dexter Parents. The editors called for consequences and enforced their editing rights by retracting the story and not allowing the writer to continue writing. Dexter Parents are simply pushing for sensible editing and oversight. No supervision of the student newspaper is the equivalent of the AA News editors taking no action, and that is not in line with responsible journalism at any level.

ks

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:34 p.m.

annarbor.com is basically just one big blogfest, anyway. What's the difference?

glimmertwin

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:22 p.m.

Very rare - a news source admitting lies. I don't even know the article, but it must have been a doozy.

mike from saline

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:19 p.m.

OK, I have to admit, I was a little under-whelmed by his writing. He's a decent photographer [he's no Liesa Thompson, but nobody else is either!], and he seems like a nice guy. I've got to think this is a nightmare for him. I'm not religous, but the expression, "their, but for the grace of God, go I", seems appropriate in this case. I hope [and believe] A2.com will handle this with a little common sense, and a fair amount of compassion. A lot of people in these parts, need to lighten up a little.

Tom Teague

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:04 p.m.

I suspect it was a tough call to pull the column and discipline the writer. I applaud annarbor.com for making it and for 'fessing up publicly. Good luck to Lon in his photojournalism - I hope he gets this behind him quickly. @genericreg - generally, libel is printed and slander is spoken defamation. Since the man wasn't identified, though, it's hard to see how the column would be libelous.

Wonderwoman

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:04 p.m.

@ Longfellow Here is the poorly written AA News article I was referring to, and please read the comments to the end. http://www.annarbor.com/news/dexter-high-school-newspaper-the-squall-causes-storm-over-stories/ It relates because the AA News supported the idea of no prior review of the student newspaper, students monitoring themselves with a student editor and disreputable information gathering techniques that clearly weren't thoroughly supervised. Apparently, when the AA News has a hiccup with one of their writers, they swiftly take action to retract the story, apologize to their readers, and pledge not to publish the writer hereafter - as a legitimate paper should. In theory, the AA news disagreed with what Dexter parents were saying, but in action, they followed the same reasoning as Dexter parents. Accountability and oversight was all that DHS parents wanted in the first place - not to severely punish students the way the writer was dealt with, but to guide them in a way that avoids these problems, because after all, they are students. A student journalism policy with oversight allows for this, but an open forum takes that ability away from school officials and puts all the control in the hands of the student editor. That would be the equivalent of leaving the editing to the story writers themselves, and as we can see, that is disastrous.

genericreg

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:19 p.m.

I cannot remember, is it libel or slander when it is printed?

Patti Smith

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.

Ugh--I forgot about the other Patricia Smith (journalist), who took our fine name and peed on it. To the present situation though, I don't mean to sound overly naive, but has anyone asked him why on EARTH he did this? I loved his columns at A2 News.

Leisa Thompson

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:10 p.m.

I worked with Lon for 12 years at The Ann Arbor News and I can vouch for his integrity. Lon is a great human being with incredible talent for photography AND writing. It's too bad you won't be able to read his next column on the World War II veteran who is soon to turn 90 years. He shows great compassion for humanity. I only wish more people demonstrated the same skills as he toward his fellow humankind. I am saddened by the harsh words from critics who hide behind their aliases. This website should do itself a service by requiring people to use their real names and be accountable for their words.

Bill Wilson

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.

Wonderwoman, I have no idea how this story relates to your post. It's my opinion that this was an individual case, and it was dealt with. If you have an issue, just send them an e-mail. My experience was that the points that I made were considered. On Lon: we either hang him, or, we don't. I'm inclined to choose the latter. Lon should be allowed to address this.

antikvetch

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:50 p.m.

Mr. Dearing, Thank you for addressing the matter, and publishing the outcome.

The Picker

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:30 p.m.

What am I now to think of his Obama love letter?

Wonderwoman

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:06 p.m.

It looks to me like the Ann Arbor News is trying to keep their stories credible and avoid poor journalism by editing, overseeing and reviewing what is published on their site. I applaud that, but it seems a bit ironic coming from them. A few weeks ago, there was a poorly written article in the AA news about the Dexter High School Newspaper, "The Squall", that failed to cover all of the facts. "The Squall" is not currently edited for content or reviewed by school officials. The students state they need an open forum to have realistic journalism experiences. The Ann Arbor News' own staffers commented on "The Squall" story supporting the idea of allowing students an open forum, calling it "free speech" even though there were questionable articles and the means by which some of the information was collected was disreputable. Many opinions stated that student journalists needed the open forum experience to be able to function in the 'real world'. So, it's ok for a student newspaper to write questionable articles in an open-forum style without advising or consequences as long as it prepares them to work for a paper like the AA News, but a 'real world' newspapers own editors won't allow it? Me thinks the AA News doth speak out of both sides of the mouth. This article is "real world" journalism at it's best. Thanks for the example.

Tim Martin

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 5:21 p.m.

My only hope for Lon is that you take into account that he is a trained "photo" journalist first and foremost. His writing is secondary.

Mature Townie

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:36 p.m.

"Lon is an extremely talented and creative individual. He just needs a good editor to save him from himself sometimes. And this time, he didn't get it." We agree with this statement... we very much enjoy, Lon's personal interest stories. We certainly hope they continue! A "mountain," was made out of a "molehill," error in judgement. We are sure the lesson was learned. Let him continue to take photos and write.

Lokalisierung

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:14 p.m.

"I just want to know specifics about how annarbor.com handles journalists who don't tell the truth. Did he get a pay cut? Is he on probation? What steps are they taking to make sure this doesn't happen again?" 1. Get over yourself. As stated by someone above they don't owe you anything. The guy had a series of columns here, this violated their rules, the column will not appear anymore. Get over it. Exact problem of many commentors here is their unbelievable amount of over importance they put on themselves. You really, acutally, no lie, think you deserve to hear whether an employee of this orginization got a pay cut? 2. As I have said before, you don't like this "paper," don't read it, don't post. You're not paying for it, they don't owe you anything.

Alan Benard

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:13 p.m.

Such things do happen at newspapers, but if your fact checking and copy editing processes are functional, the reporter flat out fabricated. If you are keeping him around, may I suggest that your processes are in need of improvement?Additionally, it my interest readers to know that blog posts are added to the AnnArbor.com news stream without any copy editing or fact-checking process taking place. This has in the past led to the site printing swear words, which is probably not in its style guide or copy editing manual. How many incorrect assertions are you reading in these reports?

fabfan

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:05 p.m.

did he just have facts wrong? was he given wrong info? fabfan

Bonsai

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

get over myself? I'm just a reader trying to figure out what's going on at my hometown news organization. I don't want to know how much he makes or what prescription drugs he's on -- I just want to know specifics about how annarbor.com handles journalists who don't tell the truth. Did he get a pay cut? Is he on probation? What steps are they taking to make sure this doesn't happen again? Agree that there are no laws or statutes, but there is ethics involved. If annarbor.com wants me to trust them, they should be as transparent as possible themselves. If you just want to unquestioningly take what they give you, feel free.

fabfan

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.

what kind of internal action? has he embellished other stories? If this was his only problem, maybe he should be given another chance. fabfan

Ricebrnr

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:59 p.m.

meh, Since it is purported that this is more a blog than a true news organization then what's the big deal? What does it matter for a blog if the stories are true or "inspired", eh? Now if the New York Times or Wall Street Journal....

Matt Cooper

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.

@bonsai: And what, exactly, makes you think you have any right to dive into ths man's personnel file and be made privy to what disciplinary actions were taken? There are no laws, no statutes and no ethics that would require the mans employer to divulge that information to you or any other individual. Get over yourself.

Lou Perry

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.

Good work!

Some Guy in 734

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.

"After reviewing the incident and Horwedels description of it, we have taken the column down. It did not contain true information, and it should not have been published." Amazingly, it seems the headline tells the story more accurately than the article does. There's a fundamental difference between a column that contains untrue information, and an column that does not contain true information. If Mr. Horwedel stated that Ernie Harwell died, that's true information, and this article's off. Sloppy job. Sad to say, I scarcely raise an eyebrow over that anymore.

ILJ

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:40 p.m.

To me, this points up the sloppy editing practices going on at AnnArbor.com. Wondering why editors looked into the specifics of the story after it was published instead of before. The policy appears to be "post first, fact check and edit later." Lon is an extremely talented and creative individual. He just needs a good editor to save him from himself sometimes. And this time, he didn't get it.

John smith

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:36 p.m.

Journalistic standards?!? Hahahahah! I just choked on my iced tea. Hack orginization. I doubt this comment will see the light of day

Bonsai

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:54 p.m.

hey MacSun - we agree on something - I'm going to have to reassess my entire worldview

Paul the Malcontent

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.

As long as his pictures aren't being doctored or otherwise mislabeled, the falsifying of a story shouldn't impact his work as a photographer. I think AnnArbor.com has handled this matter appropriately. Handling employee job performance issues is outside the domain of their readership. What we can expect, and (hopefully) critique, is proper procedures to insure the accuracy and integrity of the future work of this person, as well as that of all other employees and contributors.

Lokalisierung

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.

"(Adnan Hajj for Reuters, for one)." I'll go along with that but those are dramatic issues that photog was dealing with. What's Lon going to do...photoshop a soccer ball into his sports shots?

Macabre Sunset

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:37 p.m.

Sounds like he was inspired by people like Jayson Blair, Patricia Smith and Janet Cooke. If you saw season five of The Wire, they had a character who played a similar role. However, in every major case where sources have been invented, the writer was fired or resigned. There is no way you can run anything from Horwedel again without calling your own integrity into question. Giving him a chance to remain a journalist in any capacity (the three more famous frauds I mentioned left the profession) says a lot about whether you're trying to run a news organization or a blog. Anyone who thinks it can ever be justified to invent a source or a story doesn't understand journalism. And even if he's only a photographer for you in the future, don't forget that many notable journalism scandals in recent years were perpetrated by photographers (Adnan Hajj for Reuters, for one).

David Briegel

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.

For Pete's sake, lighten up. It is a personal/personnel matter. I had questions about the story when it first ran but I figured he was using the contrasting lifestyles as a metaphor for the ailments of our have/have not society. The growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor are more and more evident on a regular basis and the callousness of many posters defy their claims that we are a Christian nation. There are many who are more concerned about public displays of Christianity (Ten Commandments and Nativity) than actually living the tenets of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ. I agree with Top Cat and Longfellow.

Cash

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.

Mr Dearing, He's been dealt with and publicly humiliated. Case closed. Error made. To err is human. Mitch Album did it and he's famous. Let's move on.

Lokalisierung

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:21 p.m.

"my right to know is directly related to annarbor.com's credibility" haha...funny.

Bonsai

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:12 p.m.

my right to know is directly related to annarbor.com's credibility -- if our hometown journalistic entity gives fabricators a slap on the wrist, that directly bears on my judgment of their credibility as a reader. it's also ironic they hide behind "internal processes" when that's exactly what they would bristle at as journalists if they were trying to report something like this

Lokalisierung

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 2:07 p.m.

Should read "selecting the pictures..." I'm wondering why he is described simply as a "photographer" in this story, when he has been writing articles for ann arbor news/aa.com for some time? Also @ Bonsai, "internal" means, well, internal. Doesn't mean you have the right to know anything about it.

Bonsai

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:59 p.m.

"internal discipline process" -- is that anything other than the column being terminated? will this journalistic fabricator still work for you as a photographer? if so, why? "satisfied such a lapse will not be repeated" -- why? how? "taking other steps" -- like what? Will you add fact checkers? Do you have any now? How did this come to your attention? Are you reviewing his other columns? Admirable that you admit this error, but you raise at least as many questions as you answer.

bunnyabbot

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.

so by untrue do you mean he lied? made stuff up? (because that is what it sounds like to me) time to send him packing, give someone else a job.

Bill Wilson

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.

Mr. Dearing, You are indeed a man of integrity. Glad to have you here.

Top Cat

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.

Your admission and your actions are a credit to AnnArbor.com.