So, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, the editors at the almighty New York Times don’t think there is enough news value to warrant any 9/11 anniversary coverage on the front page of their newspaper.
In an online discussion with Poynter’s Mallary Jean Tenore, Margaret Sullivan, the new Public Editor for the Times says she spoke with two key editors “and they explained that their decisions were driven by news value and by the fact that this is the 11th anniversary, after an elaborate effort last year.”
In New York City?
Talk about disconnect.
The good news is that at least The Times didn’t feel breast implants merited A1 coverage today.
I just don’t buy this defense. Even the Times realized it WAS news today….because there was 9/11 coverage on the Web site for most of the day. And, given the millions of people who come to the Web site every day, whose to say that the A1 editors for The Times dictate what is news anyway?
And, as I wandered through my Facebook and Twitter feeds today, it seemed that many people disagreed with the “it’s not news” designation. My twitter feed has been churning away with the “#remember911” hashtag for much of the day. But the esteemed editors at The Times probably think Twitter isn’t news either. This notion that the almighty editors within closeted offices at hallowed newspapers are the ones determining the news proves again the quaint and antiquated nature of many news organizations in the year 2012.
The difference these days is that people don’t seek the guidance of The Times news editors — or any editors for that matter — to designate what is and isn’t news. They go find the news themselves.
I don’t know why this bothers me so much. It really shouldn’t — the arrogance of this type of thinking from newspaper folks has driven many businesses aground. But I worry that The Times editors — and many journalists out there — are missing a real opportunity. “Anniversary stories” are rarely a plum assignment. It’s easy to fall into a formulaic trap with the storytelling….but there is also a real chance here for journalists to continue educating, investigating and reporting out stories on 9/11. Kudos to The Times for running such a story today — on the dangers of small ideologically-driven groups controlling the White House — even if it wasn’t on the front page.
Newspapers and news organizations are also a place for people to learn about history — in order that we not repeat it. Yes, we need to avoid saturation coverage — but the coverage can’t just disappear. I asked my son — a freshman in high school — what he was going to be doing today in school regarding 9/11 discussion. He said: “Nothing. We did a lot last year but that was only because it was the tenth anniversary.” Such a mentality is a dangerous, slippery slope.