THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 7, 1996 TAG: 9604060015
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Long : 120 lines
Some days, you just know that the newspaper has struggled to find a strong lead story. Wednesday was not one of those days.
At 10:53 in the morning came word that a plane carrying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and a delegation of American businessmen was missing in Croatia. Hours later, we learned that the plane had crashed into a mountain, probably killing all on board.
Then, shortly before 4 p.m., federal agents announced that they had detained a possible Unabomber suspect.
And if that wasn't enough, a Chesapeake Fire Department report raised serious problems in fighting the recent blaze that killed two firemen.
Clearly, either the plane crash or the Unabomber could have been the six-column banner Thursday. The fire story, too, on a different sort of news day.
The newspaper that Pilot readers got Thursday had all three stories above the fold, but it was the Unabomber that took the top spot. Its bold six-column banner dwarfed the three-column headline, ``Secretary Brown missing in crash.''
Andy Moore thought The Pilot made the wrong choice. He felt we should have led with Brown - a black man who had ``made his way to the top'' - instead, of a man suspected of ``horrible, negative acts.'' Moore wondered: Was there racial motivation in the choice?
If there had been, then the plane crash probably would have been the lead story. Brown was, as a profile noted, not just the first African American to head the Commerce Department but the first black elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
No, I don't believe race was a factor one way or another. But picking the top story was a tough call, according to wire editor Tim Tierney. In fact, the debate went on among editors for hours.
A key question, he said, was: What will people be talking about tomorrow?
The plane crash had happened early Wednesday, leading TV and radio newscasts throughout the day. Although the bodies had not all been accounted for by presstime, the tragedy was a fait accompli. President Clinton had already eulogized Brown.
The Unabomber, on the other hand, was a developing story. The terrorism suspect had been detained but not charged, and a fascinating saga was unfolding about the family that turned him in, the feds who had put him under surveillance and the man himself - a hermit in Montana.
Obviously, newspapers everywhere were torn between the two stories.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Daily Press in Newport News both led with Brown.
The Washington Post, which published the Unabomber's 35,000-word manifesto last September, hedged by giving six-column headlines to both stories, putting the Unabomber at the top but giving a heavier type size to the Brown headline.
The New York Times, which also ran the manifesto, gave more weight to the Brown plane crash - at least, in the edition that came to Hampton Roads.
Tierney said that a double headline was considered but ruled out. Ever since the redesign in November '93, Pilot editors have avoided such ambiguities. Part of the philosophy behind that six-column lead headline (which many editors dread on a slow news day) is that it is up to the newspaper to select the most-important story of the day.
And on Thursday, it picked the Unabomber, that shadowy figure who had kept the nation under siege for 17 years.
Personally, I would have opted to give the two stories more equal display. Both were important and compelling in different ways. Either one could have been the lead.
THE DYING UMPIRE. Like many Americans, I tuned into developments in the Brown plane crash throughout the day Wednesday. But I was luckier than other TV viewers. I missed the footage of umpire John McSherry collapsing face-first in the dirt and dying at a baseball game in Cincinnati.
But I wasn't spared completely. Along with other Pilot readers, I got to see the photo of the prostrate McSherry on Tuesday's Sports front.
It was an image I could have done without, and so could a half-dozen readers who called in to ask: Why didn't you leave the man his dignity?
Tracy Chzasz, a Norfolk mother of three, was particularly upset. She didn't want her children seeing the photo, and thought it was wrong for the press to capture those moments.
``What about the family?'' she asked. ``Do they need this picture of this man in the last seconds of his life, in this undignified position, for their scrapbook?''
A column in Thursday's Sports section was headlined, ``Vivid images of McSherry's death were unnecessary'' - but mostly it addressed the television replay.
The Pilot seldom runs photos of people who are dead or dying. Why now?
``This shot was unsettling,'' said Bob Fleming, sports section editor. ``But it did help our readers see and understand what happened. Was it a graphic photo? Yes. Could we have used another photo? Clearly, yes. Was it used to shock our readers? No.''
Nelson Brown, deputy managing editor for presentation, said, ``The umpire died in full view of thousands of fans in a ballpark as well as TV cameras that documented the entire episode. At the same time, I was concerned about taste and tone and our readers. . . .''
So the picture that was selected ran two columns and downpage, ``which is modest display,'' he said.
For my taste, not modest enough. I see a purpose in running a photo of an American soldier being dragged through the streets of Somalia - that told us something important about a volatile political situation.
I can even defend the much more controversial photo we ran of an elderly Alzheimer's patient in diapers, being hugged by her daughter. It told us something about the love and anguish involved in being a caregiver.
But what did we learn from the photo of umpire McSherry? Only that apparently it's ``photogenic,'' if undignified, to die with your face in the dirt.
A BAD EXAMPLE. Another photo got us into hot water this week. It was the one, on Monday's MetroNews front, of a young rollerblader jumping over an even younger child.
Two readers felt the image set a poor example for children. ``We're trying to teach them, when they rollerblade, to wear helmets, kneepads, elbow pads,'' said Margaret Morgan. And, of course, not to jump over other children!
Nobody called in about the previous day's Metro photo of two women trying out their new in-line skates. They weren't wearing helmets or pads, either.
But that was on an inside page, and didn't involve children.
Moral of the story is: Readers look to the newspaper to set a good example, especially where their children are concerned. I guess it's not too much to ask.
by CNB