Anna Nicole
If you watch television or listen to the radio, the biggest story of the day, both yesterday and today, is Anna Nicole's death. So why didn't more newspapers play it like this? (Our front page here.)
Every time a news event like this occurs, we think through our coverage plan. She's captured attention from some portion of the public in that gossipy, larger-than-life, guilty-pleasure sort of way. Her death was unexpected, untimely and newsworthy (though hardly as shocking as some reports say, given her lifestyle).
But what seems exciting and fresh to us at 3 in the afternoon may well be tired and old in the paper at 6 a.m. the next day, thanks to the saturation television coverage. She's not local, she's not important, and her passing doesn't seem to have any direct affect on the people who read our paper. But she is sexy and people are talking about her.
Update: Baltimore Sun story about coverage. (Via Romenesko.)
Saturday update: Other views here and here.
A big front page photo of her would probably sell papers.
We didn't do it, though. Why? We cling to the notion that the front page should reflect something more than the desire to sell papers. Most of the guidelines we try to follow -- is the story unique? is it local? does it affect the physical, mental or financial health of the community? are we going to tell readers something they don't know? is it universally important? -- tell us it doesn't belong there.
It does blows the top off the one guideline her story fits like one of her skin-tight tops -- is it just so interesting that people will want to know it and talk about it?
We made our decision to publish a photo without a full story on the lower half of the page. Right one?
Comments (14)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Just to play satan's partner, "We made our decision to publish a photo without a full story on the lower half of the page. Right one?"
Selling papers is primary and news that should affect us is always secondary. Her death is news; it's not Greensboro news, but it's news. It's salacious. There's intrigue and a child-custody fight. Not reporting it would be odd, but moving the Edwards' campaign blogger resolution to an inside page (Edwards is more local than Anna Nicole) was also an editorial decision.
Non-devil's-advocate question: Why did you include only wire reports on the Edwards' blog-thing resolution and not make that story closer-to-home in this blog-smart community?
Posted on February 9, 2007 11:35 AM
I'm unsure if there is a question in that first "satan's partner" comment. But I'll answer one: yes, we absolutely want to sell newspapers, and yes, we exercise news judgment. My point is that we can sell a lot more newspapers by doing some other things, if that truly were our primary goal.
We didn't localize the Edwards resolution because we didn't think we could bring much more insight to it than the wire reports gave. We didn't give it higher visibility because we didn't think it was of that much interest to the people who didn't already know about it. (We assumed the blog-smart community was tuned into it already.)
Posted on February 9, 2007 11:42 AM
Incidentally, Charlotte published a staff-written story about Edwards-bloggers on its front page. Raleigh published it inside, and I couldn't find a story in Winston.
Posted on February 9, 2007 12:32 PM
I think the CLT story location is located well for an NC story (of sorts) and can't explain Raleigh, other than it's Raleigh. It might be that bloggers in GSO already knew stuff, but you still write, "blog, or web log," so I figured you'd want to bring a blogging story that big to a higher placement in a city like this. There's an idea: bring the blog stories to the newspaper. Or the online version, anyway.
Posted on February 9, 2007 1:28 PM
I beg your pardon! Headline on our story: "Staffers chastised for blog comments"
Bear in mind, too, that we published the Mathew Gross story on the front page last month.
In the area of stories we think readers might care about, I don't think the Edwards/blogging resolution story competes with the other ones on the front page: HondaJet, Norovirus in the hospital, 1 in 150 kids having autism or that goofy divorce story.
Posted on February 9, 2007 1:52 PM
I couldn't agree more - ANS is irrelevant to the average Joe/Jane. N&R did the right thing.
Posted on February 9, 2007 3:02 PM
So let's look back and ask why Anna N. Smith was so popular.
Was she a great actor? No.
Was she a great singer? No.
Philanthropist? No.
Social do-gooder? No.
Sports figure? No.
Military hero? No.
She was a girl with two bags of chemicals surgically implanted in her chest. And that's why we loved her so.
She took off her clothes for money and caught a rich husband that way.
She drank and drugged herself to the point of public intoxication frequently.
She contributed nothing to our society or the world.
Why do we waste bandwidth/ink on someone like this?
Posted on February 10, 2007 8:38 AM
I'd say it all starts with those two bags and her lack of clothes.
Posted on February 10, 2007 8:45 AM
OK, so what explains the equally inexplicable popularity of John Edwards? His weird harcut? His well-mansioned populism? Upbeat news coverage?
Posted on February 11, 2007 12:36 AM
Same things.
Posted on February 11, 2007 9:04 AM
You're right, John. This is really quite a non-story about a B-celebrity. I never thought she was that attractive anyway. Croc Hunter- Yes, Anna Nicole- No.
Posted on February 11, 2007 5:14 PM
Wait. John Edwards has two bags of chemicals surgically implanted in his chest?
Posted on February 12, 2007 12:25 PM
The public is always fascinated by a beauty queen who loses her figure and her mind. Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears both.
This Valentine's Day Anna Nicole Smith gives her heart to a special man. She was an organ donor.
Well she was going to except that it exploded from a lethal cocktail of cocaine and bacon.
Posted on February 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Now I understand his popularity. It's the chest implants. It seemed totally inexplicable to me before.
Posted on February 13, 2007 1:22 AM