The Editor's Blog - Latest Comments in Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Qffdx — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:28:44 -0000

qddhsdhhdsaj
The West Wing 1-7 dvd
the wire dvd complete
Two and a Half Men 1-7 dvd
Weeds dvd set
Will & Grace 1-8 dvd
Without A Trace 1-5 dvd
Xena Warrior Princess dvd

One Tree Hill season 1-7
24 season 1-8 dvd

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Okey Oyunu — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:23:29 -0000

Very good, congratulations article

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

A. Wiltonian — Mon, 07 May 2007 13:22:00 -0000

What an odd question from a Telegraph reader. I’d expect it from a reader of The Onion!

A local newspaper is supposed to be a lot of things all at the same time. Some things are definitely not entertaining (think high-tide times, school board policies, degree days and stock market results) but they ought always to be relevant.

A paper that puts entertainment first would be as useful to me a source for local news as WMUR-TV.

But that’s just my opinion. Ultimately the Telegraph’s editors, advertisers and readers will decide.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Jackie — Sat, 05 May 2007 15:45:43 -0000

I missed this article and I'm bummed out about it! I read the Telegraph everyday and have since I was 11 years old and feel like I missed out.

As the parent of a teenager, I find that the best approach to talking sense into him is to speak to him in his language. Kids do all kinds of stupid things and they need to be called on it. Of course the worst did not happen and if it had, this type of article would never have been written.

I applaud the unconventional approach and encourage more! Let's do that with the woman who slept while her child went missing and ended up eating tons of our tax dollars while searching for the kid at her neighbor's house.

Kudos to Andrew Wolfew and The Telegraph. Dude! What about mine? Sweet! What does mine say???

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Tom Auclair — Fri, 04 May 2007 09:21:19 -0000

I had to comment after reading the first several "What if these kids had hit a tree and burst into flames and become disemboweled" comments.

The truth is, they didn't. I'm sure that's why Nick decided a lighter touch was OK. How many people would have noticed -- much less read -- this item had it been written as the usual "A 13-year-old boy was uninjured blah blah blah" item?

Not many. I was also amused at the reader(s) who were aghast -- AGHAST! -- that the newspaper dare put anything "entertaining" in the paper. What is a newspaper supposed to be BUT entertaining? I want my news, but I want it presented in a way that captivates me. This story did that. The Telegraph should be commended for trying something new.

Tom Auclair

Denver, CO

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Nick — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:55:20 -0000

I want to thank all of you for taking the time to respond to this blog entry. You all raised some excellent points -- regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with our decision to publish this story in this fashion.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

A. Wiltonian — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:08:15 -0000

I didn't have a problem with the story at the time. I figured it was a juvenile approach that fell flat, but that it slipped through because it seemed funny at the time.

But now, my opinion's changed. I'm appalled by the Telegraph's defending the intentional jazzing up of news to make it "entertaining."

Please. There are enough entertainment outlets out there already. I buy the Telegraph for local news. Whether it's on the front page, or breaking-news blogs, cell phone news alerts or video newscasts, I want actual news.

The last thing I'm looking for from the Telegraph is for it to be yet one more media outlet trying (poorly) to be entertaining when it could be informing.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

P. Bannan — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:56:54 -0000

I realize the incident could have had a bad outcome but it did not. I would have shown it to my stpchildren because I think it would get the message across in a way they would understand. With so many sad events happening in this world we should not overreact to Mr. Wolfe's attempt at humor. Personally I found it amusing .

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Kirby F. Smith — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:06:06 -0000

I agree with those who were critical of Wolfe's approach to the story. The "attitude" was inappropriate for an incident that could have resulted in death and injury.

The good news is that at least two pairs of eyes vetted the article. The bad news is that those eyes didn't see that the "clever" approach misjudged the serious nature of the incident.

Finally, please, I beg all "Telegraph" writers to never, never, try to write in the style of a young teenager's argot. It's hackeyed and already stale by the time the story is published.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

John Bachman — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:03:37 -0000

I read that piece and probably would not have read it if it were reported traditionally. That is the point, right? Make it enticing so that readers will read it.

The Telegraph wins lots or rewards because (I think) it is innovative and creative toward its every more competitive business.

You can revert to "tradition" and die a death of a million clicks or you can be edgy and live. Being edgy has its risks.

Stay on the edge.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Liz McGivern — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:56:42 -0000

I agree with Dave Burgess. I use the Telegraph 3 days a week in my 8th grade Language Arts class, and Andrew's article sparked a wonderful conversation in our classroom. Andrew has come in to speak to my students, and they know him as a professional who takes his work seriously, so to read an article like that from him was a fascinating lesson on how journalism can have different "voices" even when reporting facts. They had a similar reaction to Mr. Burgess' daughter -- they would be mortified if their escapades had been detailed in that way.

Keep up the great work, Andrew. My students continue to look for your byline each week.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Dave Burgess — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:24:20 -0000

As one who reads 2-3 newspapers a day, it can become a little too easy to just breeze through the articles, perusing the first and second paragraphs, then moving on. However, an article such as this one was enough to make me stop my scanning approach, at least for a minute.

Mr. Wolfe was not trying to trivialize the situation, and quite honestly, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Of course if the incident had ended with injury or worse, the article would have been written more of a standard "News In the Region" - type of reporting. However (thankfully), that was not how this situation concluded.

I asked my 17-year-old daughter what she thought of the article when it was printed, and she thought that, had she been the culprit, she would have been mortified and humiliated to see her actions printed in this way, not encouraged to do it again, and certainly not an egg-on to her peers to try the same thing.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make reading the paper more entertaining, and as my daughter says, this article had more of a deterrent effect than encouragement.

I hope to see more of the same in the future.

Re: Dude, What Were You Thinking?

Brad Seabury — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:52:32 -0000

I personally did not find the article to be offensive--the word "juvenile" comes to mind. I must admit I would not have bothered to finish the article if I were not reading it in response to your suggestion to do so. The thing is--it was obvious after a few paragraphs that the "article" was not in fact going to give me much information, and what information was coming could have been expressed much more directly and briefly. This is not to say that I think Mr. Wolfe was wrong--simply that it is not my thing. I guess I prefer the traditional approach

In my former life as a technical writer, I happened to come across a fellow writer who was using much the same approach for a computer manual. In that case, the big boss, who felt much as you did, called for a group meeting to find out how the other writers felt about this. Most of us were noncommittal, because we did nto want to discourage our peer or come across as a wet blanket ... but I recall that the manual never got published, even though the fellow worked on it for several months. (I don't think that is why the company later wnet bankrupt.)

On the other hand, I certainly do not agree with the critics you reference. I don't think this approach condoned the activity ... and I do not believe the kids involved or their parents should be spared any embarassment. Mr. Wolfe's article was written directly to the young culprit; that would be good, if he were old/mnature enough to comprehend the sarcasm ... but what about the rest of us, who did nto do these terrible things and therefore do not wish to be spoken to in that way?