Ah, holidays. It’s rare for this paper to escape at least a few criticisms on the coverage.
Memorial Day was no exception. Although editors planned and provided some big stories related to last weekend’s events, readers found a few holes.
Among the critics’ comments:
Where was the listing of Memorial Day services? Wrote one: “When I checked the Friday paper, the Saturday paper, the Sunday paper and this morning’s paper for Memorial service sites, none was found. I know The Star would not have overlooked this event. However, where was the information buried?” It wasn’t buried. It didn’t run. Next year one should appear. It’s part of the helpful information a newspaper should provide.
The day after Memorial Day coverage also brought a disappointment. Wrote one reader: “The Kansas City area had some very substantive and moving Memorial Day services. I attended two — one at Liberty Memorial and the other at Elmwood Cemetery. As I looked through my Tuesday morning Star, I saw NO coverage of local events. There were many column inches on a ceremony at Leavenworth and on the national services, and both stories were very appropriate. But where was the coverage of the local events? This was a significant oversight and a real disservice to the local veterans and their families.” Editors hoped readers would consider the Fort Leavenworth story and photo prominently played on the metropolitan front as “area” coverage. A photo of a little girl marking Memorial Day also ran on the lower left corner of Page One, adding to the coverage.
Even so, I agree that one local service, or at least a wrapup of services close by with attendance numbers, would improve coverage. Given the interest in Liberty Memorial’s restoration, that service seems especially important to cover.
Monday’s holiday front page featured a large montage of photos linked to a four-column top story, “War stories still grip the nation.” One reader questioned why the photos used in the montage (intended to look like a flag) mixed real World War II photos with Hollywood movie war shots. “With all the great photographs from World War II, was it necessary to include Hollywood’s version of the events? I know we live in an age that mingles reality and fantasy, but isn’t it the front page’s responsibility to hold the line?” Editors had different opinions on the reader’s observation. Some felt the pictures accurately illustrated the story’s focus and clearly disclosed which shots were real and which were from movies or books. Steve Gonzales, assistant managing editor for photography, disapproved. The paper must guard against mixing news and entertainment, he said. Moreover, he thought the entire presentation too big for the front page and more fitting for a feature section.
For me, the mixed images weren’t troubling. The story and headline explained it was about today’s nostalgia boom. But I agree that the size of the presentation wasn’t appropriate for the front page. Readers often tell me they’d prefer more news in all sections and would shrink the artwork as one way to find more space.
By the way, if you didn’t notice the photo montage was a flag, you have company. Neither did I. This isn’t a big deal because it didn’t need to be seen as a flag to work. A bigger deal is the fact that no photo ran of a Pittsburg, Kan., author mentioned in the first paragraph of the story. Readers like to see who is the “lead” of a story, and his picture should have been included somewhere.
One plus of the Memorial Day weekend coverage: A flag etiquette feature, appearing the Saturday before Memorial Day on the cover of FYI. I’ve heard from readers in the past who wished the paper would remind readers of flag-flying tips. This one answered the call in an easy-to-scan presentation.
