Love of Letters

Here is a recent letter from a reader and my response. I really enjoy corresponding with readers, even when they have harsh criticism for us. I am posting in the order of most-current first, so you may want to start from the bottom. And feel free to contact me with your thoughts as well. Ben

From: aec177a1@aol.com
To: Holden, Ben - Columbus Sent: Fri Jan 15 21:15:57 2010
Subject: Re: Ledger-Enquirer Concerns

Mr. Holden,

Thanks for your very thoughtful and insightful response.

I do agree with most of your response. I also agree that my criticism of the quality was not justified for the local news. Your reporters have provided some very interesting local news. I also complemented Dusty Nix. I should have been more focused on my criticism of the national news as printed from the AP.

Regarding the AP. If you print it, then it is as if you agree with the stories, from the readers' view. I complained to you about them because you are the face of my local paper. If you agree, then there is a need to address those concerns to the head of AP. Without feedback, they will continue with shoddy journalism. I understand the need for brevity but, there must be balanced brevity to be validity.

I do plan to continue my subscription and hope you will take another look at my comments because, they do represent the views of many of my friends. Typically few people will complain but the complainers do represent a good many silent individuals.

Susan Miller's articles were of local interest, written with local, down to earth examples. She wrote specifically to the small business person.

Regards,

A. Earl Cheal, D.B.A.

In a message dated 1/15/2010 12:12:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bholden@ledger-enquirer.com writes:
Mr. Cheal:

Thank you for your note and the level of thought and analysis behind it. Valerie Canepa, our president and publisher passed your thoughts along to me and I hope you won't mind having me respond in her stead. Also, I am taking the liberty of sharing your note and my response with our newsroom, because you so perfectly capture a number of misconceptions held by a small (but vocal) minority of our readers.

First off, you make many valid points. We have, unfortunately, made difficult decisions resulting in a smaller inch-count news report over recent years, accelerating between 2007 and 2009. Thankfully, we have not cut the size of the newshole further since the middle of last year, and I am hopeful that things have stabilized.

As to staffing, we have slimmed down, as have many American businesses during the current economic downturn. Our staff of 37 news full-time-equivalents cannot possibly be in as many places at the same time as the 62 we had when I took over as editor in September 2004. I wish it were not so, but I believe there was method to our madness, which I'll hit upon in a moment.

As to quality, however, I take exception to your fundamental point that the paper has declined steadily in recent years. Here are the facts:

1) Our newspaper remains the leading paper of our size (40-60K) in the state of Georgia every year in journalistic quality based on competitions conducted by the Georgia Press Association and the AP (although by your note it appears you don't hold a high opinion of the AP). Many years over the past five we have literally dominated the quality based news categories, frequently pacing neck-and-neck with the eight-times larger Atlanta Journal-Constitution;

2) As to reader satisfaction, our last study had our "satisfied" or "very satisfied" numbers in the mid-sixties, which put us at No. 2 within our 31-company newspaper group;

3) As to volume of significant local stories, we typically ran between 3 and 3.5 local stories on A1 in the first part of 2004. That number has been consistent for the past five-plus years despite a smaller staff. We also log total number of local stories, which typically run between 9 and 11 each day, excluding sports.

The bottom line as to the volume of stories (as opposed to quality) is that we have primarily shrunk the wire report and to a lesser extent, business reporting. And while we are not proud of taking anything away from our readers, we believe our primary franchise is local news.

I, too, have complaints about the Associated Press, but they are primarily about their thin coverage of important issues, not of bias. If you know those folks (and I know plenty of them) they are often too interested in writing inside-baseball Washington or global politics and not what matters to real people back home. But trust me, they'll take any scalp they can get -- Democtratic or Republican.

Your perception that we are "headed down a road to self-destruction" is no doubt based upon the mistaken belief that the future of our business is ink-on-dead-trees. To the contrary, it is electrons flowing through fancy devices that did not exist 10 years ago and may not have been invented yet. That is why we are so proud that our internet traffic for our news stories increased 86 percent last year, No. 1 within our entire 31-paper group.

Finally, I promised to get back to your point about financial cutbacks. Here's the bottom line: smart businesses make cuts while they still have a business. They don't hold on to yesterday's business model until they have to go running to their creditors (or to government) looking for a bailout -- or a handout. Maybe General Motors should have made tough decisions 15 years ago when the market changed.

All that said, we truly appreciate our traditional readers as well as those who want to consume our news on the internet. Happily, you are mistaken about our company "faltering," and while we cannot share internal financial details, the meteoric increase in the market value of our company over the past six to eight months indicates that our investors are pleased with our direction.

We hope you will stick with us, too.

Best regards, Ben

-v-
Ben Holden
Executive Editor
Ledger-Enquirer
(706) 571-8560 - Phone
(706) 576-6290 - Fax
www.ledger-enquirer.com
bholden@ledger-enquirer.com

From: aec177a1@aol.com
To: Canepa, Valerie - Columbus
Sent: Fri Jan 15 10:09:42 2010
Subject: Ledger-Enquirer Concerns

Since 1963, I have lived in Columbus on three occasions and have lived in the area steady since 1997. During those times, I have subscribed to your paper. I have watched the paper continue to decline in quality and in quantity. I now pay for an ever dwindling newsletter, which is hardly worth retrieving from the delivery box.

My comments will likely fall on deaf ears because, it appears you are headed down a road of self destruction and nothing will enable you to change. I will address my concerns, which are similar to those of other people I know. My points are not in order of importance and are only examples:

The AP stories you carry are typically one-sided and fail to be objective, complete and balanced. You need a different source for your national news. Today's articles are a good example:

Page A11 Tentative tax deal marks health care breakthrough This article was mum on the sweetheart deal reportedly obtained by the unions, to exempt their health plans from tax. It also fails to explain how that burden will now be handled. The article is also mum on the President's repeated promises for open health care negotiations to be broadcast on CSPAN. The President promised transparency. The article ignored that. I see no logical reason not to provide balanced coverage of such important topics.

Page A18 Many of president's campaign promises unkept This article failed to address the most important issues that bear on those things over which the President has direct power. He promised no lobbyists in his administration yet the words were hardly out of his mouth before he hired several. He promised an ethical administration yet, he appointed several tax cheats and even after their violations of the law were revealed, he continued with their appointments. He promised transparency in his administration yet, we have seen much more secrecy than transparency. He promised to work in a bipartisan fashion yet, from all indications the opposition party has been all but shut out of most of his initiatives. He promised health care negotiations would be open and be broadcast on CSPAN. One could argue that Congress will not permit it. However, the President could (if he had any backbone) require broadcast of negotiations or he would not support it or sign it into law. I am not aware of any such discussion about this. What about his commitment to meet with dictator leaders one-on-one basis to resolve the differences? That was not mentioned.

Your paper's want ads are dismal. I can understand why. Because of dwindling circulation, due to biased reporting, the exposure for ads is down. In addition, I recall, a few years ago, when I wanted to run a small ad, the price was exorbitant. That turned me off and I have not attempted to run one since. I suspect the high prices over the years has also impacted on the willingness of other individuals to place want ads. In the past, I have made purchased from the want ads but, now it is not worth my time to even look at them.

You removed one of the highlights of your paper. Susan Miller's articles about business. She is an experienced manager and business consultant, and a talented writer. By eliminating her effective articles, which were beneficial to local small business owners, you further reduce the need to subscribe. You have cast aside a local talent which gave people a reason to open your paper..

I would be remiss without complementing Dusty Nix for his generally good editorials.

I also appreciate the efforts of our delivery person, Mr. Bob Horne.

If you do not make some drastic changes, your paper will continue to falter and you will likely continue to lose circulation and advertisers, including me.

I expect you will not respond, which will be further indication of your management's indifference to the future of your paper.

A. Earl Cheal, D.B.A.
34 Wagon Wheel Dr.
Ellerslie, GA 31807.