Playing the royal birth

Well, the NY Times did put the birth on 1A --- photo only.



Washington Post and LA Times made it 1A centerpiece. The "birth" may not have been on TV, but the reactions were.

Although LA Times' "The Prince of wails has arrived" is a highly questionable headline choice (fine for a Dave Barry column, not so fine for your main news head).

 

Well that's what I get for having a Kindle Paperwhite.

A pox on the New York Times, too.

 

Thank you for actually looking that up.

Was there any decent art to go with this story? That could affect placement.

 

I "actually look(ed)" it up, too. I just missed the standalone art because I read the Kindle version this morning, then opened the front page online and looked at the teasers.

 

And where the FUCK did the Times play the Penelope Cruz-Javier Bardem baby?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/penelope-cruz-javier-bardem-baby-girl-report-article-1.1406423

 

So, you failed.

 

There's no reason not to put it on 1A.

My argument would be that the only reason the NYT did not put it out front is because it went out of its way not to put it out front.

 

It was also teased on the Asian and International versions before the birth.

 

I suppose the better question, then, might be: Why does this family still occupy a place in the culture such that the public feels compelled to follow their lives and newspapers feel compelled to give them A1 placement?

 

Yes, they used to be important.

Now they aren't.