From this morning’s Times:
The ousted editor of The Los Angeles Times on Monday offered a scathing critique of the newspaper industry and specifically his longtime employer, the Tribune Company, arguing that cost cuts, a lack of investment and an aversion to serious news was damaging the business.
(Emphasis added)
Could this be? Could the Tribune Company be averse to serious news. It hardly seems possible, does it. Let’s take a little unscientific survey.
The Front Page story in this morning’s Times. World Markets Plunge on Fears of U.S. Slowdown.
The fact that we’re heading toward world wide economic disaster does seem like serious news, doesn’t it?
The Front Page story in this morning’s Day: Global Markets Still Need Some Help
Why it’s the same story. And why not, since by anyone’s measure it’s phenomenally important. Weird angle (“Ha Ha, world. If we screw up here we can still take you all down!), but nonetheless, serious news.
Now, how about the Courant, our local Tribune newspaper. Surely the Courant, the flagship Connecticut newspaper, will make mention of the looming economic disaster, will it not? Let’s see. Top story: “Cheshire Dispatch Log Released”. Why, it’s only the 500th story about a freak crime that is supposed to have us all scared by the rash of home invasions, the number of which remains stalled at one. It must be somewhere, though. Let’s see, also on the front page: College Price Cuts Unusual. Hmmm, well there’s one more. Let’s see: Get Out of Our Town, a story about Suffield’s opposition to a biodiesel plant.
Wait, here it is, on the lower right hand side of the front page, in a tiny box: a one sentence teaser directing us to page A3. There it is, proof positive that the Tribune Company is not averse to serious news. It just knows how to prioritize.
Post a Comment