The newspaper's front page
A reader called to complain that we didn't mark the 4,000th American death in Iraq on the front page yesterday. (Actually, we published a blurb on the front with the story on page A7.) There's a great deal of discussion about newspaper play of this story on media sites.
A number of factors go into decisions about the front page, and they vary in importance from day to day. They have also changed over the past 10 to 20 years.
On national stories -- stories that get big play from television and online -- a key question I ask is, what new can we add to readers' understanding? If the answer is not much, the story has a hard time climbing onto the front page.
Thank, among other things, the death of the 24-hour news cycle. The reports of the 4,000th American death were on the TV news and Internet throughout the day on Sunday. By the time our Monday paper hit the driveway, I'm thinking most people knew the story. (In Sunday's paper, we published a story saying the number of deaths had hit 3,996 and 4,000 was imminent.)
In addition, the days in which the front page is a record of the day's most momentous events have passed. We want the front page to add information/insight/value to people's lives. The number of times that the typical reader scans the front page and thinks, I know that already, should be minimal. That's one reason we emphasize local news over national and world news on the front. It doesn't mean we don't care, which the caller about the American death speculated. It simply means that telling you something you already know doesn't help you or us.
We watch television and know what stories they track. We know what stories are "most read" and "most e-mailed" online. Attention spans are short. When something has been out for much of the day, it loses its value quickly. Newspapers must be sensitive to that.
That is why we don't have Clinton's misspeaking about her time in Bosnia on the front page, and why we haven't given a great deal of high visibility to Obama's minister. (No, it's not a liberal bias.)
There are exceptions, of course. We're still old-fashioned enough to give good play to a world-altering event. We also understand the historical value of a front page. But with news as a commodity -- free just about everywhere -- then the newspaper must add value.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
That is why we don't have Clinton's misspeaking about her time in Bosnia on the front page, and why we haven't given a great deal of high visibility to Obama's minister. (No, it's not a liberal bias.)
Clinton was just puffing herself up and I could care less, but the Obama minister, was and is, a big thing to the point that Obama has lost significantly in the polls. Seems Obama is the Cinderella candidate in the press and the press is polled at 80% Liberal, so, it is, a Liberal thing, JR are you trying to suggest that you and the N&R aren't Liberal! You do have a sense of humor! lol
Posted on March 25, 2008 3:29 PM
The flip side, Beau, is that we also have not published many stories, if any, on the front page about the slide in President Bush's popularity over the past year. Does that make us conservative?
In fact, some people would say that not publishing a story on the front page about 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq is supportive of the administration's policy.
I would say it's neither, but then I don't see everything as either red or blue.
Posted on March 25, 2008 3:40 PM