I cleaned out some personal files last weekend and ran across a number of old columns that I wrote earlier in my career.
The columns ran in three different newspapers but the broad idea behind all of them was much the same as Behind The Headlines -- that is, they tried to provide some insight and perspective on why and how we do what we do.
It was a nostalgic trip back to my professional past to read some of those old columns.
There were a variety of subjects, from education coverage -- my favorite beat as a reporter and a topic I gravitated to when I first became an editor because I knew it well -- to city politics, to baseball, to explaining why I chose to run mug shots of two juveniles charged with a serious crime.
My favorite was from 1984 that pondered whether a major league baseball team could be put together from then-active big leaguers whose dads had also played major league ball. And the answer to that question is yes, you could.
That column really didn't have anything to do about putting out the newspaper, but it was fun to write, and even more fun to revisit 28 years after the fact.
But there were some topics there, too, that would be familiar to readers of this column. The one that jumped out to me was just a note at the end of a longer column written in the mid-1990s.
The majority of the column explained how and why a reporter wrote a specific story. But at the end, I noted that readers had complained to her about the headline.
So, as readers of this column will know, I took the opportunity to explain that the headline and reporter have nothing to do with one another. Be mad at the reporter about the story, I said, but if it's the headline you don't like, it's the copy editor you want.
That was true then in another state and another newspaper and it's still true today.
NOT ENOUGH: A story on Page 1A Monday would have benefitted from some additional information.
The story was a feature about the Wasatch Outlaw Wheelers and a weekend Jeep ride by the club.
One thing missing was specifics about where the club was riding. There was a general reference to the Northern Utah mountains, and some people providing online comments jumped to the conclusion that the club was riding, uninvited, in a prohibited or private area.
Partly right. The club was riding on private land, but with the knowledge and consent of the land owner.
The land owner did request that the location not be made public. The story would have been more complete if that information was included in the story and it should have been.
APOLOGIES: It hasn't happened for a while, but in last Saturday's paper, the jump, or continuation, of a story from Page 1A was missing from the paper.
The inelegant but accurate explanation is human error. We simply weren't paying attention when putting those pages together.
The story did run in its entirety on Page 2A of Sunday's paper.
My apologies for any inconvenience the incomplete story may have caused readers.
Dave Greiling is managing editor of the Standard-Examiner. He may be reached at 801-625-4224 or via email at email@example.com.