Al's Morning Meeting

Let's say you only use organic products on your lawn, but your neighbor is a chemical user who wants maximum green with minimum fuss. It is the outdoor equivalent of secondhand smoke arguments. Green enthusiasts say when one person in a neighborhood uses chemicals, everybody gets exposed.

Here is an excerpt from the story:

As the organic lawn movement grows, so are tensions in some communities. The latest front is over whether lawn-care methods are the horticultural equivalent of secondhand smoke: a choice that affects the whole community. Neighborhood activists argue that using pesticides on one lawn exposes everyone nearby to the chemicals, including kids and pets.

Enthusiasts are trying to shame their neighbors into joining them with pro-organic lawn signs, prompting some residents to apply their chemicals covertly. Homeowners who want to stick with pesticides say how they groom their lawns is their own business. Even spouses are facing off over which comes first -- eliminating chemicals or creating a dazzling no-fuss lawn. The lawn-care industry, meanwhile, is walking a tightrope, hoping to profit from organics without turning against their traditional products.

But wait. Do yard pesticides really pose a health threat? The Journal points out:

That study echoes findings of a Parkinson's-pesticide link in men reported last year by the Mayo Clinic. There have been other studies, including one in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, suggesting that exposing dogs to some herbicide-treated lawns and gardens may increase their chances of developing cancers.

The pesticides used in lawn-care products found on shelves nationwide are considered legal by government standards. But broader research on health risks from such chemicals has prompted general warnings. The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticide use, notes on its own Web site that kids are at greater peril from pesticides because their internal organs and immune systems are developing.

Al's Morning Multimedia

The Wall Street Journal "Grass Warfare" story, written by Gwendolyn Bounds, includes a video that Bounds worked on. The video was more professional, and at times even more comical, than most newspaper-generated Web videos.

The story also features a podcast with Bounds, who has decided to go organic in her own yard, and a slideshow of her yard over the last year.

I interviewed Bounds by e-mail about what it took to produce all of this multimedia:

The video is terrific. Who shot, produced and edited it?

Gwendolyn Bounds

Thanks, Al. We had a good time doing it, particularly roping in my neighbors, who were star material. I'm paying them in steaks and wine -- not on WSJ's budget of course. Video was shot by the great John Perugini -- he's one of our senior multimedia producers. I wrote the script the morning of the shoot, and the two of us had a mind-meld about 15 minutes before we started shooting. We spent about five hours [working on it] one afternoon ... and John put it all together over the next two days, adding music from GarageBand and making the whole thing fly.

When in the process of reporting the story did the notion of a photo slideshow and video arise? I assume it was not an afterthought, given that you had a sort of time-lapse photo show of your lawn.

However we can best illustrate and illuminate our stories online, be it in slideshows, videos or podcasts, we try to do so. For my part, I took pictures as much as possible throughout my lawn overhaul -- both for myself (even though it was horribly depressing when the grass looked so bad), and knowing that one day we'd probably need a record of this to use in our coverage. Video is something we try to do at the paper when we can really visually add something to a story beyond what the words tell us. It doesn't work for every story, and the trick is trying figure  out the ones for which it does.

WSJ.com has been seriously ramping up its multimedia coverage over the last few years under the tutelage of Bill Grueskin, who's just been promoted to The Journal's deputy managing editor of news, and Robert Leverone, who heads up video. Now, we're going to go more heavily into multimedia under Alan Murray, who's overseen our CNBC alliance and is a TV personality himself, and who was just promoted to executive editor online for The Journal.

You are hardly a stereotypical Wall Street Journal sort of reporter on video. You are lively and funny in addition to informative. How much on-camera training have you had, and what would you say to fellow reporters who have a lot of reservations about doing on-camera work?

Ha, you don't know my colleagues. They are exceptionally lively and funny, especially when the Dow is plummeting or we're in the middle of an acquisition attempt. Oh wait, I can't talk about that, can I? Not much official training on my part; I'm lucky because I've had a regular gig on CNBC over the past year talking about small business (WSJ has a content partnership with CNBC) and recently was made a contributor to "Good Morning America" (WSJ also has a partnership with them), which is a blast. I've learned TV on the fly for the most part.

Advice: Well, I'm no pro by any stretch, but I think video is just another way to tell your story. The trick is not to try and translate an entire story literally. You've got to figure out a couple of key messages and themes, and concentrate on those. Or, you've got to think of some sub-section of the piece that is better shown than told. People wonder about getting nervous, but really, you just talk to the anchor or camera the way you would someone at a cocktail party: Say what you've got to say, and don't be boring. And personally, I prep like crazy for even a three-minute hit. I prep down to the last minute before we're on air.

It is not a typo. The federal government proposed to raise taxes on premium cigars by up to 20,000 percent. The St. Petersbug (Fla.) Times says:

As part of an increase in tobacco taxes designed to pay for children's health insurance, the nickel-per-cigar tax that has ruled the industry could rise to as much as $10 per cigar.

The story adds:

Here's the source of the controversy: The Democrat-controlled Congress has sought an extra $35 billion to $50 billion for the state children's health insurance program. The program distributes payments to the states to help buy coverage for kids not poor enough for Medicaid.

Cigarettes, which accounted for more than 95 percent of tobacco tax collections last year, are the main focus of the bill. Federal taxes on a pack would jump from 39 cents to $1.

But the legislation has dragged cigars along for the ride. The industry operates under a 4.8 cents-per-cigar tax cap.

Under the proposed bill, taxes on "large cigars," a category that includes all but the tiny cigars sold in 20 packs like cigarettes, would rise to 53 percent.

A U.S. Senate version of the bill under consideration [...] in the Finance Committee sets the maximum tax per cigar at $10.

Many states also slap a tax on cigars. Click here for a summary state by state. Rush Limbaugh, a cigar lover, has spoken out about the issue.

Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends on the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be corrected.