Back to web version
‘Relevant’ is a relative term in choosing subjects
By DEREK DONOVANThe Kansas City Star
She felt that a wire story about Democrats and Republicans in the House compromising on a war-funding bill should have been on the cover, instead of Page A-7. “I can’t think of anything that affects more Americans than this,” she said.
But she added: “I know a lot of people must tell you what The Star ought to be writing about, because it’s usually just what we’re interested in. And I know someone on the other side thinks you should be doing the opposite.”
Well put — and it’s a truism I’ve come to believe strongly. Readers look to newspapers to cover stories that are relevant to their lives. But for a general-interest publication in a wildly diverse country like the United States, “relevant” is relative.
Politics are obviously an evergreen for these discussions of fairness. Opponents of the Bush administration think that every bit of bad news from Iraq should run front and center, while the other side wants to see more good news about Iraq’s reconstruction on the cover.
The fight for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination was especially fertile ground earlier this year, with supporters of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton scrutinizing The Star’s coverage closely, sometimes even tabulating mentions of the candidates’ names and pulling out rulers to measure and compare photos.
Of course, absolute mathematical equity is impossible with something as squishy as a political campaign. Instead of tit for tat, editors strive for balance over time, and it’s up to the readers to supply judgment about the results.
It isn’t all about politics, though. I often hear objections from readers who think that coverage directly implies the paper’s endorsement of a subject. A good recent example was Eric Adler’s June 1 story about mixed martial arts fighter Mike Parker. Several people contacted me to express their extreme anger at The Star for running the story, which they felt glorified the violent sport.
Adler’s story didn’t pull any punches in its description of the bloody competition. I’m sure some readers found its graphic prose exhilarating, but I’m equally sure that others had their eyes opened to the often-brutal realities of mixed martial arts, one of the fastest-growing sports in the country.
But time and again, readers see coverage as validation, and they often don’t like the subjects they see journalists writing about. Alcoholic beverages, hunters, gay people, military recruiters, atheists, gambling, luxury goods — the list is as varied as the readers themselves.
I’m not saying that some news stories don’t cross the line into advocacy sometimes. But journalists should cover the totality of human existence, and not just the corners least likely to ruffle feathers.