A Question of Priorities

Keeping in mind that, for a print edition, a newspaper's "lead" story is the one printed above the fold and on the far left hand corner, the second most important story is the one printed to the left of that, and so on across the top of the paper moving left to right above the fold.

So what are the considered judgments of the New York Times this morning?

This is the lead story, and, in related news, this is the second story.

Although the front page is dominated by a picture of the President about to give the Annapolis speech yesterday, four columns wide, underneath that picture (besides the second story), is this story, given three whole columns.

The coverage of the speech is pushed all the way over on the far right, barely making the cut for above the fold articles.

In an interesting side note, although Elizabeth Bumiller's accompanying Analysis piece appears on pg. A-16 (below the fold) clearly subservient to the straight news coverage, the Times home page, just like that of the Post, gives pride of place to the Analysis piece, with straight news hugely deemphasized by comparison.

Comments

[James Joyner]

Perhaps they are finally realizing that reporting on news that's 20-odd hours old by the time people read it is not interesting?

There were dozens of blog posts on the Bush speech within minutes of its completion Wednesday. A straight news coverage of it Thursday morning would be incredibly stale. Even for those who don't read blogs--which is to say, most people--the topic has been hacked to death in the online press, radio and television news reports, talk radio, and the cable talking heads shows by the time the print newspapers come out.

[Media Hound]

And how is publishing the article "U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers" not an act of treason by the NY Times?

This front page article, by Jeff Gerth and Scott Shane, conveys this:

Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.

"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.

But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.

What's next for the NY Times, publishing real-time maps of US troop and asset locations?

This is an act of treason by the NY Times, and the White House needs to at a minimum publicly criticize such treacherous activity in speeches, and perhaps pursue legal action.