Battle of the Bands
In the old days, say, pre-2000, front-page news decisions were simple. If they were in place today, you'd start with an Iraq story, add in Michael Jackson, some Washington politics and finish off with a couple local stories. Every paper did pretty much the same thing, which is why every paper looked and read pretty much the same. Many papers still use the same formula.
Then there's today's front page.
Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson. What is this, Rolling Stone?
The first decision in our newsroom yesterday afternoon was how to play Jackson's acquittal. Big, as many papers did? It certainly is a story that everyone is talking about, and there wasn't much else going on in the nation. (Not that anyone would know about it given that, as Jeff Jarvis notes, 2,200 journalists awaited Jackson verdict, 2,199 of whom could have been out getting different, better stories for their readers/viewers.)
There was sentiment in our newsroom that the trial should be played large, but it didn't fall in our favor in the news cycle. The verdict was announced live on television, led many of the newscasts at 6 and 11 and was dissected ad nauseam on cable news shows. What could we bring new to the story when the paper hits the streets 12 hours later? Plus, while it was a story people were talking about, it certainly wasn't important or have much impact on the lives of our readers. (Although there was great headline fodder, including "Moonwalk" and "Beat it.")
So, we decided to play it on the lower half of the page, as a consequence negating any spur-of-the-moment box sales a screaming headline and photo may have delivered.
Earlier in the day, as we were chasing confirmation on the Springsteen concert story, we had decided that the Boss, coupled with the Nelson-Dylan concert story, would be the main art on the page. The Springsteen story was news for obvious reasons, given his history in Greensboro and his fan base. The Nelson-Dylan story had less news, but it was a interesting slice of life in the evolution of downtown.
That led to a discussion about whether all these post-50 entertainers, none of whom have had a big hit in several years, were an infatuation of baby-boomer editors, rather than readers. We are trying to think a bit younger, after all. Maroon5, for instance, has had a string of hits and a best-selling album for the past year. They played a packed gym at Elon University in May 2004. But we covered them with a story inside Go Triad. Their name resonates with the 15-25 year-old crowd. Who knows how many of the 40-55 generation has ever heard of them.
Did you want more Jackson and less Springsteen? More Iraq and less U.S. Open? More Senate and lynching and less on crime stats online?
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
As a Jersey boy and a huge fan of Bruce Springsteen, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the news of the Boss' stop in Greensboro. I was even more pleased to see the N&R had put him on the front page. Good work.
You're hunch about the importance of using a huge Michael Jackson headline was correct. I was sick of Jackson by 7:00 last night. I had heard the verdict, listened to some radio commentary and read a couple of wire stories. A lead story in the N&R would have been overkill.
Posted on June 14, 2005 9:14 AM
Thank you for sparing us more of the Jacko fiasco!
The story is a drum that has been beaten nearly to the point of breaking. How much longer will the rest of the media continue to beat the drums of ignorance while ignoring something of substance, even if it is a bit on "the Boss".
Posted on June 14, 2005 9:42 AM
The question I have concerning the Jackson coverage is: Does the public really care enough about this story to justify all of the media coverage, or does the amount of media coverage tell us more about the media itself?
In other words, if the story only generated a few headlines here and there, would there be public outrage and demands for more coverage, or would it seem about right?
Posted on June 14, 2005 8:27 PM
Interested, that's a great question and it's one that editors and reporters think about on most of the stories they do. I think people do/did care about the Jackson case for a number of reasons. I don't think they shared the intensity of interest that the media -- and I mean television, really -- showed with its coverage. But I do think they cared whether he was convicted or acquitted. I know that about two dozen people in our newsroom gather around the televisions to hear the verdicts...and immediately after they were announced, everyone went back to work, showing no interest in the talking heads' dissection.
Posted on June 14, 2005 9:01 PM
I hardly ever agree with you editorially, but I have to say I heartily endorse the paper's decision to emphasize local coverage. Furthermore, I think it is a stroke of brilliance for you to embrace blogging so extensively. You deserve the good press you have gotten from this.
Can it be that you sense competition, and are trying to out-local them? If so, then good for you, and thanks for leaving out the hyperbole.
I can say unequivocally that I would rather read about local tax rates, goddesses in Bicentennial park, and home growing of tomatoes (though the idea of multi-grain bread and the preference of Hellman's over Duke's mayonnaise makes me think the author must be from some less-civilized locale such as Raleigh or (shudder) Charlotte), than to read anything about the Jacksons, whether Micheal or Phil.
Anyway, keep up the good work and don't forget to tell the sports section to stop dissing Georgia Tech.
Posted on June 15, 2005 8:08 PM
Thanks, donnyboy. Now if Tech would actually do something in sports worth writing about....Kidding, just kidding.
Posted on June 16, 2005 7:03 AM
Just a thought. There's a story in USA Today that talks about Tamika Huston. She's been missing for over a year and little or no national media coverage has been done on her plight. Seems odd, but there is a story on the local front of the News & Record about the problems a neighborhood is having caused by the construction of Painter Boulevard. Odd thing is, two years ago a number of predominantly black communities in Southeast Greensboro had the same problems and we couldn't get any coverage, despite repeated calls to the media. Ironically enough this happened when we in a drought and didn't get any rain to help relieve the dust. And because of the city's water restrictions we couldn't wash the dirt and dust off our cars or houses or sit outside at all for that period of time. We just didn't suffer from the noise but the doctor pills from allergists were off the chart. Surely news coverage doesn't depend on where you live and what you look like.
Posted on June 16, 2005 1:57 PM
Thanks, Robin. Allen over at Thinking Out Loud addresses the same issue. I don't remember the Southeast Greensboro community dust issue, but we were clearly remiss if we didn't pay attention to it. It certainly would have been a good story. (You should have called me. You know me well enough to call me on the carpet!:))
You also know that news coverage shouldn't depend on where you live or what you look like but that it occasionally does. That's one of the reasons we're trying to do a better job increasing the number of journalists of color on our staff....so that we will be more aware of stories just like the one you describe. Please don't give up on us. Call us with more.
Posted on June 16, 2005 9:35 PM
John,
I'd like to echo donnyboy's praise for the blogging feature you offer. I'm relatively new to this, but I've become addicted to the dialog that goes on regarding the editorials and letters to the editor. Even thought there's some disagreeable contributors, overall there is a high level of discussion on a broad range of issues that is thought-provoking and informative.
I pity the letter-writers that don't follow up on the response they initiate. If more people did, I think there'd be less letters on the same topic. It's gotten quite boring to read another letter about the NYT issue, when the forum has discussed it quite thoroughly, for example.
So, kudos to the N&R!
Posted on June 17, 2005 9:44 AM