News-Record.com

Today's New York Times makes note that newspapers across the country treated the deaths of 2,000 American troops with bigger headlines and more drama than they did when the death toll hit 1,000 in September 2004.

Kit Seelye writes: How to explain the difference? Highlighting deaths during war can be perceived as a political statement, as Lincoln learned when he was accused of playing on people's emotions with the Gettysburg Address. Were editors last week trying to compensate for having ignored Iraq lately? Was it a reaction to the growing scale of casualties, though the numbers are still small by the standards of other wars? Or was it implicit criticism of the war itself?

We certainly played the stories differently, but not for the reasons she tosses out.

Last week, coverage of the 2,000 milestone dominated the front page. (And evoked this letter, published today, and this discussion last week.)

On Sept. 8, 2004, the day after the death toll hit 1,000, we published a story about it on the left-hand side of the page in one column. But we weren't trying to make a political statement. Sen. John Kerry was in town campaigning for the presidency the same day. Stories and photos of his visit monopolized the real estate on the front page.

And we got popped for that coverage, too.