Most coverage of the front page of The New York Times on Wednesday, October 14, 2015(National Edition) talks about political related issues. 30% of the page reports the outbursts led by Palestinians in Jerusalem. Seven people died in this riot and many people got injured. What a tragedy! This coverage is at the top of the page and it is with a picture that visualizes this tragedy happened in Jerusalem. For me, It's not hard to understand the editor's intention to put this report of the outburst at the most eye-appealing place. I personally see this as a respect from the editor to those people who died in this outburst, hoping they can rest in peace while it is also a warning to people especially to those who are in Jerusalem that there is a danger that could potentially be spreading out now.
Another report on the front page is about Obama's rethinking of pullout the troops in Afghanistan, which is another political and military involved issue. In addition, coverages of questioning Obama's promise of the immigration plan, swelling afghan chaos and the changes of planned parenthood fetal tissue policy almost take up the rest of the page. It seems like the editor is aim to not only inform people of world news like riots in other countries, but also to increase people's attention towards political issues like policy change or troops evacuation, which is important to the country but people normally wouldn't search for.
Well, honestly, I don't find these political issues are posted in the front page of the New York Times surprising at all. Since political issues are indeed national concerns, they go up to the forefront without saying. However, what really surprises me is that the democratic presidential debate is not up there. However, I checked the other versions of the New York Times and I found the presidential debate is reported on those versions and it is above the fold. I found it interesting that how the newspaper reports differently but subtly according to the differential attention of concerned issues. On top of that, I do think coverages accompanying images are more appealing. I usually read those reports that have image with them because images are really direct and story-telling. Sometimes a picture says it all. A good captured picture can narratives better than a coverage that is full of words.
Hi Dawn,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! It was interesting to see what a national newspaper was like since I did my post about the Seattle Times. The content was much different from what I had analyzed since it pertained to local news. It was also cool but at the same time a little obvious to see that the New York Times covered so much more political and world news as opposed small businesses. In addition, the issue that I deduced from your post is that its a little difficult to come to the conclusion what was of interest to the editors. Yes, they posted about world news, but are they doing it to inform the public about what is happening around the world or are they just reporting information to gain the attention of readers? Again I just wanted to say great work and I can't wait to read more!
Thank you so much for your comment and reminder, Jeff! I really forgot to draw the conclusion of editors' interests of what to publish though I kept reminding my self not to lose a key point! I'll definitely add that to my entry. :)
Delete