Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Bad Precedents
RedEye's coverage of the Supreme Court has always been perfunctory, and often silly. Right now would be the best time to improve it.
The first day of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings consisted mostly of ideological overtures, so I can understand if the immediate news story is a little thin, especially in a newspaper that promises readers fast news. RedEye's Page 3 lead story today understandably does not have a whole lot to say about Monday’s events, but because of that it is a stark reminder that the mini-daily format needs a new and very specialized kind of wire editing. Here's how it would work for a story like this:
One: Condense like hell. If you've got room for only 400 words, toss out some of the poofy Ed Kennedy and George W. Bush quotes. And since you, as an editor of a Tribune Co. paper, have access to AP, Reuters, New York Times News Service and other wire stories, combine a few different angles. Lead with the immediate news; include a paragraph on the significance of Sandra Day O'Connor; talk about the political ad campaigns that kicked into high gear as the hearings began; take two or three grafs to analyze the memos and decisions that have made Judge Alito so controversial. At least.
Two: Context--at the risk of being redundant, context context context. They way this story ran, it's as if RedEye assumes its readers get enough context already from other news sources--which one would like to hope is true, but it's an irresponsible assumption. It suggests an "in case you're not watching or reading anything else at the moment" attitude.
Three: Put something worth knowing in those infoboxes. The one that ran with today's story tells us the cutesy details of Alito's private life. Fuck that! It might have been fun a month ago, but these are urgent times. How about putting something there for young readers who could use more information about the judiciary and its many controversies? RedEye's readers are witnessing a debate that older people seem to control. This cavalier use of novelty can only make a young reader feel more cut off. Don't get me wrong; I'm not spouting off about "empowerment" or anything. I'm just saying this paper needs to be more diligent about providing for the basic need of information.
The first day of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings consisted mostly of ideological overtures, so I can understand if the immediate news story is a little thin, especially in a newspaper that promises readers fast news. RedEye's Page 3 lead story today understandably does not have a whole lot to say about Monday’s events, but because of that it is a stark reminder that the mini-daily format needs a new and very specialized kind of wire editing. Here's how it would work for a story like this:
One: Condense like hell. If you've got room for only 400 words, toss out some of the poofy Ed Kennedy and George W. Bush quotes. And since you, as an editor of a Tribune Co. paper, have access to AP, Reuters, New York Times News Service and other wire stories, combine a few different angles. Lead with the immediate news; include a paragraph on the significance of Sandra Day O'Connor; talk about the political ad campaigns that kicked into high gear as the hearings began; take two or three grafs to analyze the memos and decisions that have made Judge Alito so controversial. At least.
Two: Context--at the risk of being redundant, context context context. They way this story ran, it's as if RedEye assumes its readers get enough context already from other news sources--which one would like to hope is true, but it's an irresponsible assumption. It suggests an "in case you're not watching or reading anything else at the moment" attitude.
Three: Put something worth knowing in those infoboxes. The one that ran with today's story tells us the cutesy details of Alito's private life. Fuck that! It might have been fun a month ago, but these are urgent times. How about putting something there for young readers who could use more information about the judiciary and its many controversies? RedEye's readers are witnessing a debate that older people seem to control. This cavalier use of novelty can only make a young reader feel more cut off. Don't get me wrong; I'm not spouting off about "empowerment" or anything. I'm just saying this paper needs to be more diligent about providing for the basic need of information.
