Each point is valid. I believe there is news value in looking at how police responded to the incident in compliance with a 2005 commission's recommendation, even if the story is published a week and a half later. Also, I believe there is room in the newspaper for information regarding those arrested during the festivities (this has been another point of contention in and of itself, one that I believe would be incredibly true if not for the fact that there will be follow-up information throughout the summer that states whether these cases were resolved or dismissed and their result). At the same time, it could be time to let go of the story from the print angle. My solution to this is to maintain online coverage that is posted in The State News' "Cedar Fest Special Coverage" section, with a daily refer to the Web site for continuing Cedar Fest coverage.
Still, this decision on how to approach the next week or so (and probably on how it should have been approached this week) should mostly be dictated by person who picks up the newspaper every day. Ultimately, the question without much of an answer then becomes how do you gauge what readers want to see each day before a newspaper is ever printed. The media has a tendency to take something huge and run a marathon with it, even though some people only want to see a 100 meter dash. From the wardrobe malfunction (don't worry, this is a Poynter link … you won't get fired for clicking on it) to the Howard Dean cackle to the bickering between presidential candidates, the media loves a good story. But do we love one too much?
1 comment:
Interesting post. I think at times we do become enraptured by a story and hang on to it longer than necessary. On the other hand, often we'll find readers say they're bored with something but based on online clicks, they really are still drawn to a story. I do like the fact that the State News has looked for interesting angles on the Cedar Fest coverage. That's what really makes a story work.
Post a Comment