Times Public Editor Questions JFK Terror Story Placement

June 10, 2007
The Public Editor
Plots, Politics and the Weight of Page 1
By CLARK HOYT




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/opinion/10hoyt.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor&pagewanted=print

 

Boom, please refrain from just "posting the wire" ... if you have something specific you'd like to discuss in regards to this story, please do so, but don't just post a story.

 

As was noted in the story and in several other published reports, this wasn't a credible terrorist plot. The only way it could have happened is if Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer produced it. The NY Times played it right. Small refer on 1-A with the full story buried. You probably got all you needed to know from the front page tease.

As to Mr. O'Reilly's stunt, first, he was wrong. Second, implausible domestic terror plots are a lot like bombings in Tikrit, and we know where he stands on the latter.

 

Read the full story - very interesting debate at the The Times . editors said if they had to do over they would have put on front page.

 

Might, not would. Two very different words.

And what would have been accomplished by a small article at the bottom of the front page instead of the front-page refer to a more complete story inside?

 

It was a gutsy call and I assume the motives were fine. I don't agree with it, though.

I like and respect the NYT. My impression is they see themselves as being above the fray, that they don't let other news organizations make the NYT's decisions for them -- they don't play follow the leader. And that's OK in some instances -- is it really necessary for their sports section, for instance, to try to debunk every wild trade rumor reported by competitors? In this case, though, I think we have to assume NYT readers do not exist in a vacuum -- they have access to the Internet, there are at least two all-news radio stations in NYC and some NYT readers may even watch a little TV. And then they turn to NYT, either immediately online or in the morning in the newsprint editions, to find information that is hopefully more reliable than their readers can find elsewhere. They could have still gone the opposite way of everyone else without burying the story and looking like they were either asleep or biased.

 

I found it interesting that even the FBI initially said that the plot, described by the men who were arrested, what logistically and physically impossible to pull off.
That said, O'Reilly is scum. He purposely only showed the top part of page 1.
He's no different than those he claims are Satan.

 

Exactly Frank - heard story on News radio 88 and went out to grab my Times from driveway to read further - it was such a big deal on radio that I did not even consider possibility that story would not be above the fold.

Finaly found in metro section which as we know from some of your previous posts is not really written with true NYT reader in mind.

My thought first was that the Times somehow had missed the story.

 

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read. Kinda neat to see how the big guys do it.

 

If "burying" a story means giving it a 6-column headline and a double byline and writing 50 --- count 'em, 50 --- inches and accompanying it with two photos . . . then I guess the NYT did indeed "bury" the JFK plot story.

 

Interesting debate. I think, as said in the piece, that with it being a slow news day, it probably deserved a small headline on the front. As others have pointed out, readers likely hear the hubbub on radio, TV or internet and to open the NYT and not see it on the front probably does them a disservice.

The NYT editors were careful not to overplay it, but if the story made it clear that it wasn't an actionable plan and it got only a single column below the fold, I'm sure the readers would have picked up on the fact that it wasn't close to happening.

 

And now the question is where will the NYT play the story when the case comes apart and these guys get charged with visa violations and the like?