A rant about the headlines

tommangan · **Posted:** Sat Apr 19, 2003 4:19 pm

The headline this morning for the arrest of Laci Peterson's hubby was just as big and black as last week's "Baghdad falls" headline. Granted, this is something of a local story in our paper ... though the body was not found in our readership area and the victim was not from our readership area. How in the world did we get to the point where a single murder case is as big a deal as a war between two countries where the fates of millions are at stake?Remember all those definitions of news they taught us in college? I think it's time to include a new one: "Similarity to a TV movie of the week."

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:23 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:

How in the world did we get to the point where a single murder case is as big a deal as a war between two countries where the fates of millions are at stake?
<hr></blockquote>i blame 24-hour TV newscasts, although 20th century precedents exist (Shepherd in Calif., for instance) when murder cases have been plumped into screaming-headline prominence beyond natural circulation areas. with the war winding down, news managers think the public needs a new soap opera.and, yes, we can expect a made-for-TV movie about the case this month.attempted murder is all it takes these days to get nationwide attention. anyone remember Amy Fisher-Mr. and Mrs. Buttafucco?it all comes down to telling a story; in this case, a mix of marital infidelity, pregnancy nearing full term, Christmas, etc.not that i approve.

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:55 pm

Pack journalism, pure and simple. The 24-hour news networks can be blamed in part for this phenomenon.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

Here's a different take, and the first reason leads into the second.Reason one: Newspapers are no longer guaranteed readership. Television and the Internet have stripped that luxury. TV and Internet news are essentially free. People buy extended TV service for entertainment; news is a bonus, and thus "free." People buy Internet access for e-mail, instant messaging or porn, and thus news is "free." Newspapers are bought for news, circulars or classifieds. You can do little else with a newspaper. And so you have to convince people every day that there's news they don't want to miss, because that's all you can offer. Which is why:Reason two: Design mandates "lead" stories. There are two types of design leads: A) a 66-78 point lead, and B) a holy-shit-the-world-is-going-to-end-today 88-1xx point lead. (Fonts vary sizes.)The outbreak of war, attacks on U.S. soil, shuttle disintegrations, etc. fit into category B; Everything else fits into categoy A. That's how a washed up body becomes comparable to the occupation of a foreign capital.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 4Jfan:
Design mandates "lead" stories. There are two types of design leads: A) a 66-78 point lead, and B) a holy-shit-the-world-is-going-to-end-today 88-1xx point lead. (Fonts vary sizes.)The outbreak of war, attacks on U.S. soil, shuttle disintegrations, etc. fit into category B; Everything else fits into categoy A. That's how a washed up body becomes comparable to the occupation of a foreign capital.<hr></blockquote>I agree that papers find themselves needing a big story to display every day. Not all are as rigid in section-front layout as 4Jfan says, but many are and just about all of the rest come close.But that the murder of an individual not known to the public before her disappearance could be made that story shows a breakdown in thinking. Or does it?I work at a paper that treats many local killings as briefs. Yet, some murders do find their way onto the local section front or even Page 1, even if the victim was not famous. We say in this country that all persons are created equal. But, in death a person's station in life and the circumstances in which he or she died finds newspapers seemingly speaking otherwise.It comes down to being able to tell a story that customers will want to read. Murder victims, their families and the suspects become celebrities, principally through TV, and readers love celebrities. And newsroom decision-makers do what they think readers want.Many of us work in newsrooms where TVs are turned on to CNN or Fox News or MSNB or all of them around the clock. Decision-makers can say this is so we'll get updates and be able to watch events live, but how many of us have seen newsplay decided on the basis of what these news stations, or ABC, NBC and CBS, do? Or what the NY Times or a few other major papers have on their news budgets? Yeah, we can call that pack journalism. Laci Peterson appeared to lead the kind of upper-middle-class life that millions of readers aspire to. So did Jean Benet Ramsey. Elizabeth Smart has returned to hers. So, their suffering fascinates readers -- or at least many newsroom decision-makers think so.The NY Times and a few other papers see themselves as papers of record; that's their modus operandi. The rest tend to compromise to make their money. We can blame the readers or we can blame ourselves if we don't like this.[ April 20, 2003: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:41 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:

i blame 24-hour TV newscasts, although 20th century precedents exist (Shepherd in Calif., for instance) when murder cases have been plumped into screaming-headline prominence beyond natural circulation areas.
<hr></blockquote>Hell, 19th-century precedents exist. In 1893, papers across the country carried daily coverage of the Lizzie Borden case. Then there were the newsbooks of England in the 1600s. Those were packed with details (some even true!) about society murders and the like, and people couldn't get enough of them. This is our heritage!

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:36 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by dmfugitive:
Hell, 19th-century precedents exist. In 1893, papers across the country carried daily coverage of the Lizzie Borden case. <hr></blockquote>However sensational the coverage, the Lizzie Borden case had the appeal of being "interesting," which the current case is not. Few murder cases are.

tim · **Posted:** Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:08 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
How in the world did we get to the point where a single murder case is as big a deal as a war between two countries where the fates of millions are at stake?<hr></blockquote>Apparently, being white and not poor have a lotto do with it. We can't stop what has been done, but we can keep this from continuing.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:34 am

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/21/OTHER.TMP andhttp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/28/BA131494.DTL

Testy Copy Editors

A rant about the headlines

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links