Ombudsmania!

(AP)

This is the beginning of a semi-regular look at the issues at play in Print MediaLand, at least the ones that seem worth passing along. (Sometimes things get too insider-y even for us.) So keep your hands inside the car at all times, and we're off:

When Readers Attack

Given recent high-profile instances at the Washington Post and this very website, the highs and lows of Reader Comments were the topic du jour at the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Hartford Courant as well.

How's the wind blowing in San Diego?

This takes us into a brave new world that I find both terrifying and exhilarating. I think it's loony to allow readers to post these comments anonymously. Considering readers' interest in interactivity, I also think we'd be crazy not to give this a whirl.

Some say these forums represent the lowest common denominator in public discourse. Others worry that allowing unproductive, unsubstantiated chatter to be associated with responsible news organizations threatens the mission of journalism.

I think the readers who matter are sophisticated enough to distinguish between idle chatter and responsible reporting.

Remember Kristy Swanson in "Ferris Bueller?" (The whole "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard …") The Atlanta Journal-Constitution thinks the sourcing on the story about Atlanta Falcon quarterback's illegal dog track is sounding Swanson-ian:

When the newspaper runs unsubstantiated reports, we do our readers a disservice and do little to distinguish ourselves from less reputable sources. Yes, we should continue to ask questions — we just need to exercise more restraint when we don't have the answers.

The Sacramento Bee is dealing with some serious racial undertones after a writer used the phrase "shucking and jiving" to describe a boxer's motions during a prize fight:

What may be appropriate in one circumstance is not in another. Words that are humorous or funny in some situations are just the opposite in others.

A newspaper is in the word business. We have a responsibility to know the difference.

At the Baltimore Sun, a public works spokesman said something not-so-nice about Rush Limbaugh that ended up being posted on the Sun's website and quickly disseminated around the web.

Traditionally, editors decide what news is most important and what belongs on the front page. On the Web, however, the volume of reader traffic for an individual story - often driven by individuals and groups with strong agendas - can influence news decisions. This was likely the case in this instance.

The Chicago Tribune weighs in on the controversy surrounding a Pasadena newspaper's outsourcing of a reporting job to India. Cue the huffy condemnations:

Serious news reporting is about sources and contacts, about interpretation and analysis. It is also about witnessing, not a passive viewing, but going beneath the surface and understanding what created the developments, events or tension.

The Washington Post takes a week off from journalism issues and takes a look at the physical formatting of the newspaper's "half pages." (It's actually duller than it sounds, if that's possible.)

A steady chorus complains every week, and as the use of half pages grows, so do complaints. Readers find those flapping half pages maddeningly hard to read on the Metro, at a desk or table, or even sitting in a chair.

And lastly, a journalistic Mortal Sin was committed by the San Antonio Express-News when it exposed a scandal of "$79 million in Defense Department money, courtesy of taxpayers and Congress, allegedly being redirected to civilians within the Medical Command and federal contractors. All the men indicted are civilians." So why did the Express-News run a photo of a military man to go with the story when none of the accused are soldiers?

And, [the reader] asked, why would the Express-News illustrate the story with a soldier in uniform when civilians are the ones accused?

We have no excuse — good or otherwise. We apologize to anyone who was offended by the photograph. It shouldn't have happened. No soldiers have been accused. A soldier should not have been used to illustrate this story.