STORY ABOUT DRUG INFORMANT WAS CONFUSING TO MANY READERS

The front page last Sunday featured a lead story with the banner headline,
"Top U.S. drug snitch is a legend and a liar."

The story began with a two-column lead-in, with extra-large type. It is a
design technique reserved for big news stories.

The play wasn't the only big-story indicator. The story was more than 100
inches in length. It also represented four months of work by two reporters,
Michael D. Sorkin and Phyllis Brasch Librach.

Yet, some readers responded with questions that showed they missed the
point of the story.

"So what was the purpose of the article?" one reader wrote. "Tell me, why
should I care?" a caller asked.

The story centers on Andrew Chambers, a top-gun professional snitch for the
federal Drug Enforcement Administration. We learn from the story that he
has been paid mega amounts of tax dollars to trap and testify against drug
dealers. But he also has lied under oath about his arrest and conviction
record.

But what is not clear are the implications of this information. Readers'
confusion over the story shows that clarity in the writing and presentation
are as essential to telling a meaningful story as gathering the facts.

The story had input from senior editors, including Todd Duncan, senior
editor for coverage; Arnie Robbins, managing editor; and executive editor
Richard Weil.

Patrick Gauen handled editing the story as public safety team leader, and
the reporters deferred to Gauen to talk about the story. Gauen said the
point of the story may be vague because he and the writers wanted to avoid
drawing conclusions or editorializing about Andrew Chambers. They wanted to
present the information and let readers draw their own conclusions.

But, even so, a valid question from readers is why all of this information
is important. And that can be done without editorializing. It's an
essential part of reporting news.

And we've lately tried to be more explicit about the news value of a story,
especially on the Sunday front page, where we usually pointedly tell
readers the "what, so what and now what" on each story.

In this case, a little more consideration of the "so what" might have
helped more readers understand the significance of a lot of hard work.

Gauen said the significance of the story is that Chambers' lying under oath
might subvert many of the hundreds of drug cases in which his testimony
resulted in convictions. So, the DEA's top gun may also be a top liability
to the program. And that might also mean that a lot of taxpayer dollars are
down the drain.

You could also consider the civil liberties implications of paying what
amounts to a bounty for nailing drug suspects. To whom is such an operative
accountable? And how secure are anyone's rights with these methods? Most of
all, the story reveals information that raises questions about the DEA
undercover operation.

But readers have to struggle to glean these points. Why?

First, because the story is a result of an investigation by Post-Dispatch
reporters, it reveals information that most people don't know and wouldn't
know without the reporters' efforts.

And, in this case, the story comes with no preamble. The dealings of the
drug agency have not been in the news lately, certainly not on our front
page. So, the subject wasn't an easy connection to readers.

Then, the story and headlines center on Andrew Chambers. But why and how he
became the target of a Post-Dispatch investigation are unclear from the
headlines and story.

And though the story explains that the investigation results in a
behind-the-scenes look at how the government relies on informers-for-hire,
the story actually is a detailed look at the character of one of those
informers, Chambers.

But, again, the story doesn't effectively tell you why.

And that brings us to another question from several readers. "Do your
writers and editors have a death wish for Mr. Chambers," wrote T.J.
Kirkenmeier. "Why not print his address so the drug dealers can pay him a
call?"

Gauen said the writers and editors were not trying to endanger Chambers,
but they were aware that the story might appear to put Chambers in danger.
They talked about it, but decided that the story and front-page photo were
not providing secret information about Chambers.

The photo comes from a poster distributed nationwide by a public defender
in California. Gauen said also that the photo is several years old, so
authorities believe the photo is unlikely to be effective in identifying
Chambers. But that raises a question of why the old photo was deemed
pertinent to the story.

In investigative articles such as this, reporters and editors expect some
criticism of their work. Usually, the criticism comes from someone affected
by the revelation. But the reader criticism about the drug snitch story was
about understanding the story. Most simply wanted to know the importance of
what we were reporting.

There's always the chance that some readers will miss the point. But
usually reporters and editors can learn something from these messages.

In this case, limited time could well be the culprit. The story was handed
to the page designer, copy editors and headline writers on deadline.

Ideally, investigative stories require more time for this production phase
as well as the reporting and editing phase. But, more often than not, the
production phase gets shortchanged as the need to use the story outweighs
the desire for more time.

Being able to see the completed pages on an investigative story a day
before press time gives editors the advantage of seeing the finished
product as readers would see it.

In this case, an extra day might have given editors the insight to clear up
the questions readers asked after the story was printed.