This article is critical of the Stamford Advocate family of websites, and its not my first. However, it is specifically critical, and it is constructive criticism, and I am more than happy to give them credit when they address their issues, as they did today.

So, I don’t want anyone to think I’m all hating on the SA, because I’m not - I like ‘em!

Yesterday I wrote an email targeted specifically to the editorial and advertising departments of the Stamford Advocate.

I reminded them (again), that their pop-up flash ad creatives for Stamford Hospital were offensive in content and frequency, and should not be shown to users *every* time they visit the homepage, just once a day at most.

I also criticised them for continuing their practice of not including video or images with their frontpage stories, even when the subject of the story is a photograph or video (!)

Well, they responded this time!

First off, I do not get the horrifying ‘Cancer’ flash pop-up ads on any of their websites right now (as I got a mouseful of them this morning). The advertising department replied the intention was to not show these ads to users more than once a day, but evidentially they hadn’t been able to properly implement this technically. Perhaps my email got it prioritized. I know I am not the only one to complain directly to them about this.

Secondly, slowly but surely, the Advocate has been adding the appropriate media to (some of) its web stories - at least in two specific cases.

1. The story about the Papa John’s car break-in now includes a link to the video discussed in the story (better than nothing, but an embed would be preferable - but thats rare for any newspaper). I referenced this story specifically in my email to the editorial department.

2. The story regarding the surveillance video of the person of interest in the Paoletta murder case has been updated to include the most revealing photo. (you can see all of them here)

However, the story about the Beating and Robbery At Riverside Walgreens still does not have the security cam photos (we have them here).

This last story is especially unfortunate, as the sister of the victim in the case specifically commented on the article on their website, asking why Greenwich Time had not included the pictures.

Previously, I had commented on these stories on the Stamford Advocate website and let their confused readers know that I had the images discussed on my website. However, my comments seem to not be appearing on the Stamford Advocate website anymore I don’t know if they have banned me or its simply a fluke.

Only time will tell if they keep up the inclusion of media on a consistent basis. I think their hesitance has been a combination of easy-to-use media posting tools in their content management system and/or the legacy of newspapers considering their photographs to be the value-add for their print product.

From the email response from Stamford Advocate Marketing Services, it would seem that the issue is a workflow problem, where editors submit the text copy and rely on web producers to follow through with media prior to website publication. He it was his hope that the editorial staff would take this step more upon themselves and not rely on the producers.

So why have I been making such a big deal out of this? Because when a large newspaper chain like the Stamford Advocate/Greenwich Time/Norwalk Advocate will not consistently publish photographs of persons wanted by local police on their website, they are really dropping the ball on a longstanding public service in the newspaper community.

Although I don’t mind helping out, I certainly do not have anywhere near the reach of their websites - there isn’t anyone who can pick up the ball for them, and their print reach is much more limited.

If the Stamford Advocate wants to keep their own photographs limited to print publication, thats fine and entirely their right to do so. However, when they are provided photos by public officials which need to be widely distributed in order to be of any use to the local police, they are failing their community by not publishing them on their website in a consistent and timely manner.