Sure, there’d be the occasional swear word at a public hearing that became heated, or a slip of the tongue, or a libelous quote that deserved special attention.

But for the most part, it was a rare that an editor cut a quote due to objectionable material.

Fast forward to Web. 2.0 and newspapers’ headlong rush into interactivity.

Many days on Honoluluadvertiser.com, it’s hard NOT to encounter cursing (albeit disguised by a cleverly placed ** or other word tricks) racial slurs and just plain meanness in the hundreds of user comments posted on stories, blogs and forums.

It seemed like the floodgates opened when we opened virtually all of our Web content to user comments.

For those of us in the various news desks (city, sports, business, Island Life) who try to monitor the comments and posts, it is a bit overwhelming.

There are hundreds of breaking and standing stories on our site every day, and all of them allow reader comments. Hot stories (Aloha Airlines, anything to do with rail, others) routinely get more than 100 comments apiece. We try to monitor as diligently as possible, but there’s no way keep up with it all.

The system is designed to be somewhat self-policing, and that’s where abuse reports come in.

Any comment that gets three abuse reports is automatically removed from the site. (Although users can repost the same comment, and others will have to re-report it.)

In addition, several editors try our best to look for comments that don’t belong. We can delete comments or keep ones that have been reported but do not violate our policies.

For the most part, comments I see are earnest efforts at sharing personal perspectives, commiserating with people experiencing tragedy and other constructive commentary .

But then there is the inexplicable, the perplexing and the just plain rude.

For some reason, crime or court stories typically draw comments about the ethnic background of the victim or accused.

Similarly, it’s quite common to find gruesome commentary about what should happen to the accused, either in prison – presumably after a conviction – or out on the streets.

Insults fly hot and heavy on any issue of controversy, from Native Hawaiian issues to rail to the presidential race.

Don’t get me wrong: we understand users are going to engage in open discussion, disagreements, even heated exchanges.

But nothing is more toxic to a discussion, and potentially an entire social network, than rampant personal attacks and a feeling that a site is out of control.

We don’t have any written rules on what constitutes abuse; it’s just common sense:

avoid cursing, either blatant or hidden, as well as racial slurs;

avoid personal attacks against other users you disagree with;

avoid making claims about a third party that you can’t document in your comment (i.e., can you cite a court case, criminal conviction, civil judgment?)

I realize some folks get a kick out of stirring up as much angry reaction as possible.

But unleashing attacks behind the anonymity of a screen name pollutes healthy discussion and the very forum that’s allowing you to throw your F-bombs.

So please, let’s keep it c*v*l out there!

[local /files/2008/06/behind-the-headlines-video.mov What do you think?]

Fernando Pizarro is deputy local news editor for The Advertiser.

The Advertiser understands that it is more than a newspaper. It is a news and information company that prints a newspaper every day, operates a multidimensional Website, delivers information to your phone and is trying to anticipate the future — that is, anticipate the next way you will want news and information delivered.

We know we have to be flexible and provide a lot of high-quality, local content in varied media. What we’re still learning is how to pay for all that.

I spend most of my time on the job tracking down news and helping to report it. I’ve been doing that for 30 years without spending a lot of time wondering how to pay for it. The ups and downs in the economy would sometimes trigger newsroom layoffs at the news companies I worked for — I lost my first job after college that way — but generally the revenues were steady enough for me to focus on reporting and editing.

The newspaper still pays most of the bills at The Advertiser. Boomers and their parents are comfortable plunking down a couple of quarters a day for their news and information on paper. That same generation owns and runs local businesses that for decades have gotten a good return on their investment in newspaper advertising.

Our paper has hundreds of thousands of regular readers, so those business leaders are still getting a strong return on their ad buys. But those same business leaders want to reach the younger people in Hawaii who don’t read newspapers, who get their news and information online. We are reaching a lot of those young people at honoluluadvertiser.com — in fact, we reach far more people online than through our paper.

But so far we spend a lot more on honoluluadvertiser.com than we earn. We’re still learning how to turn those millions of customer eyeballs into money. To succeed, we have to help our other clients — local businesses who buy ads — get comfortable reaching  people in new ways.

It’s a lot of learning for all of us: journalists delivering the news in new ways; sales people selling ads on multiple media platforms; and businesses reaching customers with innovative advertising. But we have no choice. The media world has changed and it will keep changing. As writer Peter Schwartz says, “The future is our permanent address.”

The story is infamous in journalism and legal circles as it points out how a perfectly legitimate investigative project can go terribly wrong.

McWhirter was the backup writer on an 18-page special report that ran in the Gannett-owned Cincinnati Enquirer in May 1998. The story probed the troubles of the Cincinnati-based Chiquita corporation and allegations that Chiquita officials paid bribes at Columbia ports. The lead writer was Mike Gallagher, who it was later revealed, had illegally accessed the company’s voicemail system although he was warned by editors and lawyers not to do so.

The upshot of this tale is Gallagher was fired, faced criminal charges, cut a deal and agreed to reveal his sources. Gannett, owner of The Advertiser and other newspapers, paid $14 million to Chiquita and published a controversial apology.

McWhirter was also threatened with prosecution, though he was not involved in Gallagher’s misdeeds. But through five years of prosecutorial questioning and legal depositions, he refused to reveal his sources under Ohio’s shield law, which allows reporters to withhold the names of confidential sources in legal proceedings.

McWhirther explains his refusal to name his sources in this way: “If people with sensitive information are more likely to get in trouble when they contact reporters, fewer of them will do it. If fewer people come forward, less critical information gets to the public. Democracy is not served.”

I bring this up because a measure passed by the state Legislature is pending Gov. Linda Lingle’s signature. The bill would create a shield law for Hawaii reporters and for certain independent producers and bloggers who gather information in the public’s interest.

The justification and guiding principle for this proposal echoes that of shield laws for other states, including Ohio’s. If reporters are forced to name their sources, the flow of information, often sensitive information revealing how the public has been hurt or ill-served, may slow or dry out completely.

The jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times in the Valerie Palme case, the threat of prison for San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada writing about steroid drug abuse among athletes, and the ongoing possibility of jail and fines for former USA Today reporter Toni Locy for refusing to give up her sources in the anthrax story all illustrate the problem.

Ultimately, shield laws are less about reporters than the public they serve, although the benefit to society may not be immediately clear or readily understood.

Even in the Chiquita case, not journalism’s finest hour, the substantial truth of the Enquirer’s report has been borne out. And recently, Chiquita admitted it paid $1.7 million in the late 1990s and early 2000s to a group named a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

Such information, it should be vigorously argued, deserves to flow freely.

That’s a dirty word when it comes to high school athletics here, and probably on the Mainland.

The topic has bubbled to the forefront again with the news of Punahou being tabbed the No. 1 school for athletics by Sports Illustrated. (Punahou won 16 of 32 state tournament titles.)

Recruiting is against the league bylaws. The rule states that the prospective athlete must make the first contact. And we’d be naive to say it doesn’t happen or has never happened.

Let me tell you my philosophy: change the bylaws to allow recruiting and that way schools can admit they’re doing it, because I’m for it.

That’s right.

If recruiting gives a child an opportunity to become a better person, socially, academically and athletically, then what’s wrong with that?

What parent wouldn’t want the best for his/her child? Tell me a parent who would reject such an opportunity? Why is this a bad thing, as long as the child can keep up with the curriculum?

The byproduct of recruiting is that private schools might end up winning more than public schools. That’s just bragging rights resulting from a game.

But, if the bottom line is improving a child’s opportunities that could help him or her for the rest of his or her life, then that’s a good enough reason to allow recruiting.

What do you think?

But understanding and respect for the communities that we cover is just as important as maintaining a diverse staff. Next week’s session, and others that are to come, is one way of achieving this goal. The quality of our reporting is enhanced when we have a deep understanding of what’s important to the community, culture, or people we’re writing about. To that end, we want feedback. While we can’t meet individually with everyone as we will next week with some members of the Filipino community, I’m always happy to hear from you through e-mail, by phone, and even snail mail. You can reach me at mmcfadde@honolulu.gannett.com, 808-535-2426, P.O. Box 3110, Honolulu, HI 96802.

And, of course, you can share your thoughts here.

Marsha McFadden/Managing Editor for Content.

These groups send in their press releases by email or fax to the newsroom in hopes that it will make it in print and draw hordes of people to their event.

We do place many of these types of events on page B-3 every day under the MyCommunities heading, but many more come in then we can possibly print.

As the community news editor at The Honolulu Advertiser, I’m in charge of running our myAdvertiser.com neighborhood Web sites, and I know how important this information is to residents.

To provide a venue for these type of stories, we have created the Get Published online tool. Get Published allows registered users to post their own stories and photos directly on a site covering their community.

We have seven myAdvertiser.com community Web sites: Honolulu (Waikiki to Makiki), Metro Honolulu (Downtown to Kalihi), East Oahu (Kaimuki to Hawaii Kai), Windward Oahu (Waimanalo to Kahuku), Cental Oahu (Mililani to the North Shore), Leeward Oahu (Aiea to Moanalua) and West Oahu (Ewa to Waianae).

As far as I know, we are the only news site in Hawaii that allows readers to directly publish their own stories online.

There is one caveat: we don’t allow advertising or opinion pieces on the sites. They are only for community news.

So, if you are planning a community event, a fundraiser or youth sports signups and want some free publicity, go to our Web site, look for myAdvertiser in the tool bar, click on that and find Get Published.

Then you write the news.

As The Advertiser’s digital editor and today’s Behind the Headlines guest blogger, I thought I’d talk about the breaking news headlines we list on our home page.

I’m not talking about the really big stories, like last week’s coverage of the Aloha cargo division events. Those go in a special module at the top of the page. No discussion there. I’m talking about the daily breaking news that we run in a column in the top part of our home page.

We run the breaking news stories in that space in chronological order with the latest one first, by default. Many of our readers want it that way because it makes it easy to check in several times a day and scan the headlines to see what the latest news is.

But we didn’t always do it that way. When we first got serious about posting breaking stories around the clock, we weighed the impact of the stories and listed them with the heftier ones on top.

We heard from many readers who didn’t like that format because they would have to search for stories that were new. Sure, the story at the top of the heap might have been very important but they had already read it and they wanted something fresh.

That’s the reason why we decided to run the latest ones on top. (That and the fact that our boss, Senior Vice President/Editor Mark Platte, told us to do it.)

We know some of our readers disagree with this decision. They say we list stories that don’t qualify as breaking news in their opinion. These are readers who want us to make a news decision and keep the most important ones on top, even when other, less important events keep unfolding throughout the day.

Which type of reader are you? Would you rather see the very latest, or do you want us to weigh the importance?

This is not simply the concern of editors and reporters. It is the concern of everyone. People need to know about serious crimes in their own neighborhoods because it affects whether they should take further steps to protect their safety and the safety of their families. Conversely, if the allegations of a serious crime are weak or disputed, people need to know that, too. If the media cannot obtain the information, the public will remain in the dark.

Something happened around midday on Monday at the Paiolu Kaiaulu emergency transitional shelter in Waianae, but what happened is very much in question.

One adult and the child’s mother say a 9-year-old girl was sexually assaulted.
The Honolulu Police Department says it is investigating an alleged sexual assault, but would provide no further information. In fact, HPD would not even confirm that its officers responded to an incident at the shelter on Monday.

One reason that HPD gave for its lack of information was that a person was off work for Kuhio Day. But our reporters have been trying since Tuesday to get information from the police.

We don’t expect the police to have solved the crime right away, but an explanation of what they found Monday — if in fact they came to the shelter on Monday — should be public information. Was a child taken to the hospital? What allegations were made? Some people at the shelter allege there has been a cover-up. HPD needs to speak out to allay such allegations. The public has a right to know.

A rape of a child is a very serious crime and the public is understandably concerned when such allegations surface. The public needs to know if there is any reason for concern or not, and the police are in the best position to provide that information.

As I said, no one expects all the details immediately. But the public shouldn’t have to wait this long for basic information on an allegedly serious crime.

I welcome your thoughts.

Using different sources, two reporters confirmed the names of the four male youths, members of the Saint Louis School football team. However, we have chosen — at least for now — not to publish those names.

The two main reasons for that decision are:

1. They are all 17, and therefore still considered juveniles by the courts;

2. Their alleged crime was a misdemeanor.

Generally, our policy is not to name juveniles involved in crimes unless it is an especially serious crime. The logic is that just as the courts treat juveniles differently than adults, so should a newspaper. The public scrutiny and shame that comes with being linked to a crime should generally be reserved for adults.

The story has been a Page One story because of the main player, Gerard Jervis, a former Bishop Estate trustee. If an ordinary person had chased some kids who had egged his house and there had been a car crash, the story would probably ended up on B1, or maybe as a brief on Page B3. And the community would probably have passed quickly over the story.

But, Jervis was involved and this is an Page One story. And it has touched a raw nerve in the community, especially among people sick and tired of vandalism and other petty crime that usually goes unpunished. See the comments on our online forum attached to today’s story.

Many people in the newsroom want the names published. Their arguments include:

1. The four are 17-year-olds, and though technically juveniles, they are young men and therefore responsible for their actions.

2. Among them are prominent members of the Saint Louis football team, supposedly role models for younger boys. One of them was a state all-star recruited by the University of Hawai’i Warriors. The media and the wider community treat football players as celebrities and their accomplishments are applauded — especially those players who are Division 1-A college recruits. Therefore, their misdeeds should also be reported .

3. Other mainstream media have reported the name of at least one of the boys, the UH recruit. Besides, in the 24/7 online world, the names are probably circulating on various Web sites by now.

4. By identifying them as Saint Louis football players, but not naming them, we place all members of the team under a cloud.

The more aggressive media environment that we all live in now means that organizations that withhold these names know they might be scooped by others with less restraint. Certainly, the Advertiser reporter who worked hard to get the names doesn’t like having his information cut from the story.

We will continue to report the story, so I welcome your thoughts on this issue.

I am now 24/7 Local News Editor — local is the new word. I now oversee most of the local news reporters and their stories, both online and in the paper. I help select and shape the local news coverage.

In my old job, I was more involved in national and foreign news, and in turning stories into reader-friendly packages of stories, pictures, headlines and graphics. I was at the end of the newsroom process. Now, I’m at the beginning.

Starting this new job has been overwhelming, hence the lack of blog posts. But it involves me in a new set of interesting issues. I’ll start with suicides.

We generally don’t report on suicides. We consider them a personal family tragedy that is difficult enough for relatives to handle without public scrutiny.

Suicides become news, in our opinion, when they seriously disrupt the lives of others or if the suicide involves a major public figure. Any type of murder-suicide is always covered, but if no one else is killed or injured, we are much less likely to report the story. That is generally the policy at most mainstream media.

A reader called to ask why we didn’t cover an apparent suicide Downtown on Monday where someone fell from an office building. The caller said many people saw the suicide or its aftermath.

We posted a brief item about the incident online under the headline: “Fall investigation closes Merchant Street.” The story said a person fell onto the road, but we did not call it a suicide. No other person was hurt by the fall, so we did not to report it further, either online or in the paper. We covered the incident solely because it closed a busy road.

In some cases, the evidence of suicide is inconclusive: Was it an accidental drug overdose or intended? Was the fall accidental or not? Usually the police and medical examiner are reluctant to make such a conclusion quickly if evidence is lacking. Sometimes the medical examiner’s verdict will come days after the incident. We weigh each case individually.

There is also the concern that publicity might encourage people contemplating suicide to take their lives in ways that is both dramatic and disruptive. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, there is research that shows that suicide rates rise when there are more news stories about suicide or when a suicide is prominently reported.

Many newspeople would also be able to supply their own anecdotal evidence. For instance, soon after Cyrus Belt was thrown to his death from an H-1 overpass in January, there was at least two incidents where people fell from the same overpass. We reported the resulting traffic disruptions online but did not call them suicides.

Advertiser Editor Mark Platte wrote a column about this subject last year that goes into more detail. Read it here.

I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on our suicide policy.