When first broadcast over a Boston-based TV station last weekend, it seemed like a story right out of the tabloids - perhaps hundreds of body parts found in the home of a man who had died a few days earlier.
But it was hardly tabloid news for us here at the Gloucester Daily Times. It was a local news story - the kind of story that, as long as it proved legitimate, we, as your community's newspaper, owed it to you to cover. The chief question was how.
In this column over the weeks and months ahead, I'm going to try to give you an inside look at how a local community newspaper covers stories such as this - why it includes some of the information it does, and, in some cases, why it doesn't.
I know a lot of readers often question some of what's in the paper; you may also question why an article appears where it does, and you might want to know some of the thinking that goes into presenting and developing the stories you see in The Times - your community's newspaper - every day.
Let's face it, there are times when you pick up your morning Times and say, "My God, why did my community's newspaper do that?" This column is my way of saying that, as the Daily Times' new editor, I've heard that question many times over the years - and I want to try to answer it.
My first day on the job here brought that very question last Monday. On Page 3 of Monday's Times, we printed a story noting that a number of "items" had been taken from the home of a prominent local dentist and forensics expert, Dr. Stanley Schwartz, who had died. But the story was more complex than that - and, unfortunately, was rooted in a report that seemed misleading as well.
The "story" broke through a Boston-based TV station, which suggested that hundreds of "body parts" had been taken from the home. To anyone who didn't know who Dr. Schwartz was, the story sounded horrific.
To those who did, it seemed much less so, given that he was a dentist and a true pioneer of forensic science. Yet, the scariest of images had been planted in some people's minds.
After the TV report, Al White - the acting editor of The Times for the past several months before taking his new post this week as editor of The Eagle-Tribune in North Andover - got a call about the incident and set a weekend reporter to get as much as possible about the story. That's when key decisions started to crop up.
The reporter was able to reach spokesman Terrel Harris of the state Executive Office of Public Safety, who rather quickly downplayed the TV report and made it clear that the seizure did not refer to "hundreds of body parts" as we would traditionally think of it. So perhaps that meant there wasn't a story, right?
Well, no. Not really. At the same time, Harris also confirmed that the Public Safety Office had launched an investigation. So that alone meant the case was something The Times should document - even if on Page 3 instead of Page 1. So the choice was made to print the story as we had confirmed it - noting only that "items" had been taken from the house, but also documenting Harris' comments that he had heard the report about "hundreds of body parts" and indicating that's not what the investigation was really all about.
So, why did your community's newspaper do that?
Well, again, a state official had confirmed an investigation was underway - something that doesn't always happen. Also, let's face it: To do nothing would have suggested one of at least three things: (a) we didn't know about the case, (b) we deliberately decided our readers couldn't handle it, so we wouldn't print it, or (c) it really wasn't worth a story at all.
None of those choices is what you hopefully expect from your local paper - your primary source for all of the local news and information about your Cape Ann communities. So the only choice was to use the story as it appeared on Monday's Page 3 - and online at www.gloucestertimes.com.
The next day provided the chance to get to the root of the "whole story" - and that's what I'm happy to say we did. Through an interview and visit with Harry Schwartz, the late dentist's son, Times reporter Kristen Grieco detailed Dr. Schwartz' remarkable life and career.
Harry Schwartz noted that his father - as both the state's chief forensic dental examiner and as a professor at Tufts Dental School - examined many pieces of evidence, such as teeth and bone fragments, while working at home. And he was so particular about what happened to the specimens that he had sometimes refused to return them to the state unless he was certain they would be treated with proper custody and respect. Clearly, that wasn't always the case.
Within two days, a grisly TV report about "body parts" found in the home of a Gloucester dentist who had died had turned into a story offering outstanding insight into a very special person - and his equally special career.
Would it have been better to be able to get the full story out all at once? Absolutely.
Was that possible? Not really, given the time constraints and weekend access to more officials. And could we have waited two days before doing anything, while a TV report about "body parts" was being repeated around town? Not if your community's newspaper is living up to its duty to deliver to you all the news of your hometown.
Gathering and presenting the news isn't a perfect science. But I hope now you at least know why, in this case, your community's newspaper presented this story the way it did.
What do you think? I want to know. You can e-mail me at rlamont@gloucestertimes.com And if there are other topics you'd like to see addressed in this Saturday column, I want you to let me know that, too.
Yes, I'm the editor - but this is your community's newspaper. I promise we'll never forget that.
