[Note: Ordered home delivery subscription to Manchester which must begin next Monday, so this 1st NYT reading blog is on the Monday, Feb.2 edition picked up in class, and the Friday, Feb. 6 online facsimile which I just discovered]
Monday, Feb. 2
This edition, as it would be viewed by a potential buyer from a news vending machine, only the title fold showing, is notably negative for everyone except Steelers' fans. For the first day of a work week, 3 stories of 4 focused on the economic crisis is a let down.
As noted in the class observation of a switch to an arguably more compelling picture in editions due at later times, the decision of which superbowl photograph to use was heavily considered, and probably not solely for the sake of getting the most gripping picture, but to balance out front flap stories that one might rather not read. Even the most important information may be hard to swallow without some sugar coating, whether it be in the images or entertaining, stylistic touches of lower front page stories like the image evoking piece on daring Mexican drug cartels. I assume that giving the front page 1st glance appeal makes it hard on NYTs editors when the most important, relevent stories are not appealing, and that this edition is a good example it.
Friday, Feb. 6
The contrast between the Monday edition and the Friday is drastic. While the front flap, the selling flap, deals largely with the same crisis issues, the headings omit killer terms like failure, risk and the at best ambiguous terms of Monday. Instead things are positive, moving forward, or at least pose interesting changes in status quo--men losing 82% of cut positions, the US opening back up to foreign paradeigms--and included are several fascinating scientific, effectively escapist stories about color and mood, and later in the A section wolf-dog genetics. I wonder if Monday and Friday editions of NYTs regularly adopt similar opposing tones?- And if so whether or not the rest of the week follows a gradation.
No comments:
Post a Comment