News-Record.com

Good decision. The superbowl is entertainment (and some sports) and isn't really news. "About the Superbowl" is news; but the game is simply that, a game. (However, the Red Sox winning the Series *is* news every 85 years :) I don't need the N&R for Superbowl news; I want the paper for my community and some int'l news. I applaud your decision.

Good call. The hype is always well past the saturation point anyway.

Absolutely the correct call. The maligned Jaycees probably deserve a chance to demonstrate that they are trying to address their image, and the contribution that Brazil, the Jaycees and the tournament team is a great example of the community helping the community.

Good call, but not because the SB is overhyped or "just" entertainment -- it is a big story, it's just not breaking news by this morning -- anyone who cares enough to want it bannered on the front page already knows the score.

Good call.

Absolutely the WRONG call, because the Super Bowl is a reflection of American culture, an annual event. You always put election day on A1...sports and politics aren't the same, but there's some things that are no-brainers. It's not just about local news, although the future of media will be exactly that...but you have a duty to maintain a "historical record" quality to your news product, and ignoring the Super Bowl on A1 is a mistake.

Did you put Johnny Carson's obit on A1?

Thanks, Bruce. We did put Johnny's obit on A1. Two differences: the longevity of his career and his impact on American culture, and we publish an entire section on sports, where the Super Bowl got prominent play. We couldn't have offered Carson the same alternative.

We didn't ignore the Super Bowl on A1. It ran across the top of the front page in a large promo box.

My paper did *not* have Carson on A1, which I thought questionable. I'm sure that the SB coverage in sports was huge, but I am too old-school on some things, I suppose. The four big stories of the day should be on A1, regardless. But it's interesting to hear different approaches.

I would be quite interested in your approach to photography. In the aftermath of the tsunami, and in the past (Madrid bombings, flag-draped coffins, etc.) I have advocated that even disturbing images should be presented in a newspaper. My feeling is that this is a conveyance of pure truth, and thus an essential responsibility for media. But it seems many publications get squeamish over the issue and don't show these sorts of images. The blackout of 9/11 images is a prime example of de facto censorship in my mind, and quite alarming. What's your photo policy?

Thanks for your POV.

Bruce, we make a distinction between A1 and inside. We'll run photography that tells a story and make make people squeamish pretty often inside. The front page has a much higher standard to get over. We know that some readers don't want to be confronted with the grisley truth on the front. It's just too hard not to look at it. "It's not like a can turn the page. There are four other stories that start on that page that I might want to read but I can't because you insist to show me blood and gore while I'm trying to eat breakfast." I sympathize with that and we try to be sensitive to it. We published dead bodies of tsunami victims on the front. We published inside the photo of the people leaping from the towers on 9/11. We would publish flag-drapped coffins if we had them on the front.

Bruce, how much "pure truth" do you suppose there is in an entertainment event created, hyped, and controlled by large corporations (the NFL and whatever network has paid millions for broadcast rights) expressly to make money?
I think the News & Record gave it plenty of attention, and the folks who wanted more got a really nice color photo page in the Sports section.

Rob, I was talking about photography, not the Super Bowl.

Bruce, I was talking about photography,too.The made-for-TV moment when the MVP holds the trophy in a flurry of confetti is entirely scripted, yet it has appeared on A-1 in a lot of newspapers. I don't think we need to publish that type of historical record.
As far as running disturbing images, I agree with you that we should not censor photos just because we're afraid of offending readers. But, I think that we also need to be careful that we're not running shocking photos for sensational purposes. The photo the News & Record used the day after the tsunami was a powerful image of a mother and her dead children, and I think it truthfully conveyed the devastation suffered by victims. Photos of bodies in trees and such did not run in the News & Record, but I don't believe that readers were kept from the truth by that, especially since the description appeared in the story.
By the way, did your paper put the Super Bowl on A-1?

Rob, we approached the Super Bowl like John did. Got me! Not that I agreed with it. I do agree that the photos can be contrived and who wants to see that? What's interesting...and I guess this gets back to the original point of news value on the given day...is that had the game been like last year's, or any of a handful of the games that have been decided at the end...that would be worthy of A1.

The important thing, for me, is that this sort of discussion should be going on at my paper instead of on a blog a long way from there. I've tried to generate some interest in discussing the professional considerations of the state of the medium, as well as where it's headed, but to date haven't gotten very much feedback.

Good luck getting a dialogue going at your paper. Ask your readers - I'll bet you get plenty of feedback.