Racism, war protests and anti-abortion marches. All hot buttons. All found on the front page. All in the same week.
Readers react strongly to these kinds of stories. And editors know their decisions will be scrutinized for hidden agendas.
That’s what happened with last Sunday’s lead story: “Thousands rally against Iraq war.” Some readers attacked the story as overblown and misleading.
“If 30,000 protesters showed up in Akron or Columbus, I would understand,” one reader wrote. But that many people in Washington isn’t news, “unless it is the paper’s interest to promote the agenda.”
Fact is, the only agenda pursued by the editors involved was to display most prominently the story they believed most readers would find most interesting.
That’s it.
These decisions depend on a lot of factors, like what else is happening in the world, how unusual the event is, and whether the issue has been in the news lately. This was a highly talked about rally involving some Akron-area people. The overall issue — whether the American public supports the war plans — is of considerable interest.
In addition, it was the only significant news event that day.
Some of the same people who complained about that story also looked ahead to Wednesday’s March For Life rally. “Will we have equal coverage?” a Marshallville reader asked. “Let’s be fair — not biased.”
When Thursday’s paper featured a large, front-page headline and photo from the Washington rally, that didn’t silence the critics. The page also contained a small photo from a concurrent abortion-rights rally, which angered several readers, including one who questioned my own mother’s choices.
Others were critical from the opposite direction. Andrea Martter of Copley noted an imbalance in the amount of coverage of the two rallies. “Save the bias for the editorial page,” she suggested.
Agenda? Pro-life? Anti-life? Choice or no choice? Some readers interpreted the display of the photos as an effort to influence opinions for or against the issue. In reality, the only agenda was selecting the most newsworthy photos and words from what was available that day.
That agenda word wasused a lot in a long conversation I had with Wayne Tschappat of Cuyahoga Falls. He felt strongly that the paper’s agenda was to portray his city as racist with Monday’s front-page story: “Falls racism case reaches highest court.”
“This is not a racism case,” he insisted. “Why try to sway it?” In particular, he believed the photo with a prominent “No Trespassing” sign juxtaposed with the word “racism” in the adjacent headline sent a message to readers that the paper believed Cuyahoga Falls is racist.
“Racism isn’t the primary issue in this case. This is about low-income housing. Don’t inflame the situation so that people from out of town will think this way about the Falls.”
In reality, the individual editors who picked the story for the front page, selected the photo and wrote the headline have but one collective intention: to give readers information. They are quite willing to leave it to the Supreme Court to decide whether this case involves racism or civil liberties.
Two other front-page headlines caught the wrath of readers. “A shot in the dark,” a headline on Tuesday’s story about the smallpox vaccine program, was viewed by one caller as opinionated against the vaccine.
“London Candies drizzled in debt,” a headline on a Jan. 16 story about the chocolate maker’s bankruptcy filing, was viewed as insensitive.
“Avoid cute — especially in serious matters,” said David Schultz of Massillon. Anne Husband, an employee of Harry London’s, said she was offended. “The attempt at humor in this difficult situation for the company is NOT funny.”
Headlines with attitude? Or attempts to grab readers’ attention through a clever play on words? That might depend on whether you are personally involved with the issues.
In a week filled with front-page comments, only a LeBron James shot was needed. That came from James McGuire of Fairlawn, who understood the prominent display of the Goodyear layoffs story in the Jan. 17 paper, but not the location of the story headlined, “Iraq inspectors find empty warheads.”
“Incomprehensible” is how he described the decision to place the story lower on the page than the story headlined, “James’ mother secured car loan.” “Can these apparently upside-down priorities be explained?”
Well, the headlines on both stories were the same size and width. Both stories made the front page. Both were considered equally important to you, the readers.
These examples all have one thing in common: Readers perceive hidden agendas and subjective messages on the front page.
Yes, the paper does have some agendas. Don’t shake babies. Get out and vote. Donate blood to save lives. Those aren’t hidden.
But the hot-button issues that made the front pages last week were evaluated for their newsworthiness and their interest to readers. No agendas, hidden or otherwise.
