A question editors mulled yesterday and again in this morning's news meeting: Yesterday, the military issued a report entitled "Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve" (warning: pdf in link), which states that "75 percent of America’s young adults cannot join the military" because of poor education, involvement in crime, or that they aren't sufficiently physically fit.
That's important news, definitely worthy of the front page. But The Star, like most other papers I see at the Newseum's browsable front pages, didn't run the story today because of the news of Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army post. The two stories' topics would make for an awkward juxtaposition on the page, many editors obviously thought.
Tough call. While the stories aren't really related, there's a certain thematic through-line -- people unfit for military duty. How would you have played it? And would tomorrow be too soon to bring it to prominence?
'New Journalism'
Why not report all news that is 'newsworthy' as soon as possible, prioritized and as space permits ... and let the readers decide??? Is avoiding awkwardness, or the appearance of awkward juxtaposition in the timing of, and/or reporting of, events the new journalistic goal? We don't want a filter. We want news!
Likewise, does the Star's 'new journalism' include burying lead paragraphs to the ninth? I always understood the first rule of reporting (especially newspaper reporting) is to give the most important/newsworthy facts first and fill in detail from there.
Here's the article in question's ninth paragraph:
"Concerns about elevated E. coli levels in local waterways were raised more than five years ago when a stream team at Carthage High School began sampling for the bacteria. High levels were detected immediately, but the testing drew no reaction from local officials or the state, said Wayne Christian, a CHS science teacher who sponsored the student team."
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1558492.html
Odd stuff over there at the Star, Derek.