Bruce Center believes the editor who decides what goes on the front page “has it confused with the front page of the Variety section.” Others have similar views.
Center picked on the Aug. 26 issue and added his stingers:
“NWA spiffs up Web site.” Center: “It certainly needed it, but most airlines do this several times a year. This was a commercial announcement; hardly news.”
“Tongue trickers / Food scientists turn bitter to sweet, naturally.” Center: “This could have been published last April. Or next April.”
Among the stories he believes merited the front page:
“Metro gas prices spiking.” A note on Page A1 said the story was on Page D1:
“Terror attack in India kills at least 46.” A picture was on Page A1, but the full story was on Page A3.
Eileen Shore’s critique was acid: “Hmmm. Front page stories on a potential gift for a football stadium (Sept. 13), a local connection to world leader Marilyn Manson (Sept. 4), the terrible dangers to our personal credit cards (Sept. 4). I certainly see why the news that the president is asking for a doubling of funding for Iraq had to be bumped to page 6.”
Mary Lew Pascoe said it was “embarrassing to see Princess Kay of the Milky Way deserving the front page” (Aug. 22) because “it’s not going to have an ounce of impact on people’s lives. Those types of stories belong in the B section.”
What about those gripes, editor Anders Gyllenhaal?
“The front page should cover the most important stories of the day at the same time as it portrays life in the Twin Cities. It should be dominated by local news at the same time as it covers events around the world. We also think the front page should be fresh, and must always tell you things you can’t get anywhere else.
“It’s easy to second-guess the front page choices, which we encourage. Most questions come from readers who think the front page should be about only the hardest news from around the world, which has often been out on TV and the Internet for many hours before the paper hits the doorstep.
“The front page actually has a more complicated burden when you add the paper’s local and regional focus, breadth of coverage and the vast interests and views of our readers. This is why editors work on the lineup throughout the day. The content can and often does change late in the evening.”
At a 4 p.m. meeting of about 20 supervisors the front page editor presents story nominations and Peter Koeleman, director of photography, does the same for pictures.
Managers for wire news, metro/
state, financial and sports also report their lead stories. Managing editor Scott Gillespie chairs a discussion.
Comment: On occasion the outcome is a kibitzer’s heyday. Newsroom people have a passion for it. Include me.
Example: The Aug. 23 front page was dominated by a story and photographs about Golden Gloves matches at Canterbury Park. It’s not that it should have been on an inside page. It’s whether it had redeeming value for any page. Just don’t ask me what should have been in its place. It was a blah Aug. 22 for front page news.
How judges vote
The U.S. Supreme Court formally begins its 2003-04 term next month.
The court issued 84 opinions during its 2002-03 term. The New York Times rated 13 of them as “major rulings.”
The Star Tribune published how the justices voted on nine of the 13. In one of the other four it published nary a word except for a six-inch item saying that justices heard the arguments.
The case involved State Farm Insurance, which has 1,900 employees, 400 agents and 616,000 household policies in Minnesota.
The justices voted, 7-2, that the 14th Amendment prohibits steep punitive damage awards.
The three cases in which the Star Tribune did not report how each justice voted:
They voted, 6-3, that awarding 20 points for race made the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action plan unconstitutional.
They voted, 7-2, to lower the barrier for prison inmates’ entitlement to federal hearings to challenge the constitutionality of their trials.
By a 5-4 vote they ruled that racial redistricting can consider overall minority influence and not just the number of minority voters in a district.
Comment: Granted, where a relatively less vital constitutional issue is involved and where a short summary will capture its essence, each justice’s vote may not be crucial.
But on major issues such as the four above, the readers should have been told how each justice voted. That the result of the State Farm Insurance case was not even mentioned was unacceptable.
