Parade's dilemma
Interesting discussion on tomorrow's Benazir Bhutto cover story in Parade magazine. Parade interviewed the Pakistani leader and printed the issue before she was assassinated Dec. 27 (obviously, duh). The quickest they could get it into print is this Sunday.
Parade is touting it: In light of the tragic news of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, we have released Parade's January 6 cover story on Bhutto to the media. Parade is proud to publish one of the last person-to-person interviews with the former Pakistani Prime Minister, directly from Pakistan, where PARADE Contributing Editor Gail Sheehy followed Bhutto on the campaign trail earlier this last month.
At the Editor's Desk, Andy Bechtel says: Parade magazine, that Sunday staple of hundreds of U.S. newspapers, isn't known for its timeliness. ...Parade issued a statement to editors of newspapers that include the magazine in Sunday editions, arguing that the interview with Bhutto is even more relevant now.
Perhaps, but the motivation behind sticking with the out-of-date cover story probably has more to do with the fact that 32 million copies of Parade had already gone out the door.
I would add that Parade isn't known for its news content; you can't when you have a publishing schedule weeks in advance of distribution. This might teach them to stick to celebrity cover stories, which is why people read it.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
You're coming off as a tad snarky, John. To Parade's credit, the interview has been available on-line since the 27th. They didn't "save" it for print-only. I linked it in my own post on Bhutto's death.
I don't see a problem with Parade going ahead with the scheduled publication - I think people understand the "magazine's" limitations. Given the fall-out in Paksitan (and for US policy - such as it is) after Bhutto's murder, I hardly see one of her last interviews as "out-of-date". And it's certainly "relevant".
But you and I often disagree on what is "relevant" and what is not.
A celebrity could get hit by a bus . . . or overdose . . . or be shot in their bed by a spouse. An interview is an interview.
Posted on January 6, 2008 12:13 AM
Parade's decision to publish this article is right up there with publishing an interview with JFK in October of 1963. It is beyond idiotic that this company could not have at least added a sideline that she had been killed by terrorists.
Posted on January 6, 2008 7:59 PM
And by the time the article was published (as scheduled), we all didn't know she was murdered by terrorists?
After all, as John says, it was "old news".
I think it gave the interview a terrible poignance.
And, John noted, 32 million copies of the magazine were already "out the door". Trashing the interview altogether was a better alternative?
Posted on January 9, 2008 7:57 PM