What is Howard Kurtz Thinking?
We read this online exchange (via Romenesko) between Howard Kurtz and a reader with some astonishment:
Finksburg, Md.: I'm late with this, hope it makes it in. Regarding photo of Saddam in a noose being "disturbing" - well, isn't that really the point? It's a mean nasty world out there, and sanitizing this fact so that some people won't feel uncomfortable is not the purpose of The Washington Post. It's news, and sometimes news is very very troubling. People should be troubled by it; that's the purpose The Post is bringing it to their attention.
Howard Kurtz: I agree with that, but since everyone doesn't have the same view, there is still the question of whether the picture should be splashed on the front page or the home page.
Since when is it incumbent upon editors to make decisions based on what will please the greatest percentage of its readers? (Isn't this why media outlets create a "separation of church and state" between editorial and sales?)
Isn't this what Kurtz is advocating, when he says that -- in order to justify the prominent placement of the photo -- "everyone" ought to agree that this is the proper path to take?
We wonder: How much longer would the Vietnam War have lasted if dailies and magazines hadn't run body counts and splashed photos of the wounded and the dead? And, by the same token, how much longer will the Iraq war last, so long as the media believes that it's better to be tasteful than honest?
Finksburg, Md.: I'm late with this, hope it makes it in. Regarding photo of Saddam in a noose being "disturbing" - well, isn't that really the point? It's a mean nasty world out there, and sanitizing this fact so that some people won't feel uncomfortable is not the purpose of The Washington Post. It's news, and sometimes news is very very troubling. People should be troubled by it; that's the purpose The Post is bringing it to their attention.
Howard Kurtz: I agree with that, but since everyone doesn't have the same view, there is still the question of whether the picture should be splashed on the front page or the home page.
Since when is it incumbent upon editors to make decisions based on what will please the greatest percentage of its readers? (Isn't this why media outlets create a "separation of church and state" between editorial and sales?)
Isn't this what Kurtz is advocating, when he says that -- in order to justify the prominent placement of the photo -- "everyone" ought to agree that this is the proper path to take?
We wonder: How much longer would the Vietnam War have lasted if dailies and magazines hadn't run body counts and splashed photos of the wounded and the dead? And, by the same token, how much longer will the Iraq war last, so long as the media believes that it's better to be tasteful than honest?
2 Comments:
I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU, SHANDY. BUT PLEASING THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE OF A NEWSPAPERS READERS IS THE ONLY THING NEWSPAPER EDITORS DO.
I know. But the bottom line shouldn't be the bottom line, every time...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home