A poor choice of details
Sep 12th, 2007 by Dave Olson
We’ve had several calls, e-mails and letters from readers upset about a story in Monday’s Salem News.
Most of the story was a straightforward account of Saturday night’s fatal motorcycle accident on Route 128 in Peabody.
David L. Allen of Gloucester died at the scene of the crash, which was just before the Route 1 exit. Police gave all the details they had on the one-vehicle accident.
For many readers, the problem came when we went to Allen’s house to try to talk to members of his family. People weren’t upset that we went to the house; the problem was what happened next.
There was no one at the home, so the reporter gathered some details about the house and returned to the office.
Unfortunately, these details were tacked on to the end of the story:
“A fat, floppy-eared tan rabbit was living on the back porch, penned in with white plastic fencing. He had a shelter, some wood to climb on and lawn ornaments to look at.”
As non-sequiturs go, it was a bad one.
Here’s what one reader had to say:
“ I have just read the article on the motorcycle accident in Peabody… I was appalled to read (the) description of the family’s home and even a description of a rabbit that lives there. … there was no need at all for the final two paragraphs of that article.”
The reader is right: The final paragraphs were unnecessary. It’s not the reporter’s fault – they’re trained to gather details. It’s up to us as editors to make sure they’re used in the proper context, especially in sensitive stories. We didn’t do that here.