OK, I’m officially confused. In the past, the DMN’s Problem Solver column hasn’t hesitated to finger outfits like Microsoft, AT&T and D/FW International Airport that were giving folks a hard time. So why was it, I wondered, that in today’s Problem Solver column (which carries the tag ”New” on it), a hospital that mistakenly classified a patient as “dead”–setting off a whole chain of unfortunate events–was identified only as “a Dallas hospital”?
Come on, guys, which hospital was it? Isn’t that a key part of the story? Then I Googled today’s story and, in the process, found a suspiciously similar Problem Solver column from last month. It not only told the very same tale but, lo and behold, this time named the hospital: Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas. So what’s going on here, Newsies?
11 comments
Here’s a guess. I bet this is one part of the paper’s redesign and rework that’s actually drawing some notice and quite possibly some new readers.
It appears that Ms. Fairbank is a one-woman band and the column seems to run most days.
And they’re probably getting a ton of emails and calls and chasing all of that down — even if they pursue 25 percent of it — takes a long time.
So since it’s working and drawing notice and since it takes a lot of work to chase it all down, they’re probably under a tremendous amount of pressure to run it every day. And if it means repurposing an old column or dressing it up slightly differently, then they may be doing it.
Doesn’t excuse the “new” label and it may be marginally questionable in the eyes of some, but it also may explain what you read today.
Just my 2 cents.
Yeah, they are all working their butts off. Cut em some slack, Glenn.
I usually chuckle when one of the D folks tries to jab something at the big, bad, incompetent DMN, but this is just sad.
Glenn:
If you would put your sharp stick down just long enough to read the damn articles, you might notice that this second edition is an update, with a response from the Social Security Administration and a blurb about Christmas gifts.
Not telling us the name of the hospital in this repeat version of a story they ran on Nov. 24 is the height of shameless.
You simply don’t run this story without stating the name of the hospital, and just because they named Presby last time doesn’t absolve them of the need to name them in this “new” version of the story.
Then again, the editors now answer to ad sales people, right? I guess this means basic considerations have changed. Who, what, when, where and why take a back seat once the ad sales bosses put their blue pencil to the copy.
Presby is owned by Texas Health Resources, a major advertiser. Now that editorial reports to sales well there you have it. Last month they name the hospital this month they don’t and oh they recycle stories now too. More cost efficient.
Another post about DMN minutia, but you guys have not stated your opinion about the reorganization at the Dallas Morning News? Disappointing. Very disappointing.
But what I want to know is this: why is that poor couple supporting their five grandchildren ages 11 to 15? Why are the children who fathered and mothered them not supporting them so these people can take care of themselves?
Glenn, find something else to fume about. I love that ya’ll call DMN out when warranted, but this one falls flat. There just isn’t anything there, and trying to make something of it just makes you look petty. Sorry.
Anxiously awaiting a response from Glenn to these comments!!!
@JuanPablo: If you insist, here it is: What the city’s monopoly daily newspaper does is worthy of notice. If it wants to “update” an old column, I agree that’s no big deal (though it probably should have been labeled as such). The key issue–the one that piqued my curiosity in the first place–is why the paper would withhold the name of the hospital yesterday, when they’ve been quick to ID other “Problem Solver” offenders in the past. Admittedly not the biggest journalistic issue in the world, but interesting … especially in light of the points raised by Jackson and Informed above. Now, can we all get back to work?
I like your response, “glenn hunter.” But wouldn’t the real Glenn Hunter have capitalized his name and made it all linkified like the rest of the bloggers?