On page A3 of today’s Vancouver Sun, the entire top half of the page featured not a news story, but a silly infographic about a job posting for a police dog training dummy. Clearly, this isn’t the sort of thing one wants or expects in a non-tabloid newspaper. So, I wrote a letter. And, surprise, surprise, the Editor-in-Chief (or somebody claiming to be her) replied. I wrote:
Have the Sun’s editorial standards really slipped that far? You’ll agree with me that, on any given day, secondary only to the front page, page three should covert the most important news stories–local or international. When I opened the paper this morning, what did I find on page three, under the sober but misleading title of ‘News’? An ridiculous infographic about a police job posting covering the top half of the page. Discouraged, I hopefully turned to page five, where I was greeted by a prominent article about about the sartorial habits of muslim pageant contestants.
Explain to me, then, why the story of two bombs going off in Istanbul was consigned to page eight? Is this truly a reflection of your readers’ values? They’d rather read about an attack dog dummy that actual news? If so, and if this trend of superficiality continues, I’ll be cancelling my subscription.
And she replied with:
Thank you for writing with your concerns about the arrangement of today’s paper. We normally reserve page 3 for local, provincial or national stories. The bombing story in fact was placed on A1, then given a full page and a half, facing, (8 & 9) inside the paper. Page 3 and 5 would not have afforded as much space. The one thing I am told over and over again by customers is that they get tired of bad news; they want good news, and some levity. It was in that spirit that we parsed the job posting on page 3. As for the beauty pageant contestants, it is a social issue story. I accept that it is not to your taste or interest, but others feel differently. That is the thing with a daily newspaper in a market as diverse as ours: you have to try to find something to satisfy a broad range of readers. I can only hope you continue to find things you do like and appreciate. Once again, thanks for contacting us.
And so I fired back with:
Thanks for your reply. While I recognize the bombing story did get a mention on the front page (well below the sensationalized content above the fold), it doesn’t invalidate my point. I wonder, would the beauty pageant story have run on page 5 if it weren’t about two beauty contestants?
In short, you’ve hit the nail on the head when you described your readership as “customers”. I cling to some idealized notion of a past age when newspapers were journals instead of products, when the people who read them were readers, not consumers and when market forces didn’t determine what news was printed. I have to recognize that today’s newspaper is no more or less than a fashion magazine–it exists only to sell advertising.
While I don’t blame you for listening to your customers, I can only hope that they don’t ultimately determine what you print. After all, shouldn’t the actual news content, bad or good, determine what goes on page three?
And she replied (with, I might add, a verb that’s new to me):
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Newspapering is not strictly a commercial venture; there is a public interest element to what we do. It is a factor to greater and lesser degree each day, depending on what is happening. But if we don’t give our customers/readers what they want, we soon won’t have a newspaper left for anyone to read.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
The public interest element of newspapering has diminished to an almost immesurably small contribution. At least it seems that way some days.
I am almost certain, although it may just be what I want to believe, that ‘news’ reporting 20 or 40 years ago was more about describing issues, about presenting facts so that readers could form opinions.
The newspaper business is still streaks ahead of broadcast media though.
I’m not sure much has changed . . . I’ve just finished reading a compendium of Mark Twain stories. I think he was a journalist for a few years, and he wrote at least two hilarious essays on the decline of newspaper standards. His basic point was that editors will exaggerate, contort, and if necessary invent stories to the most outrageous degree ? if it gets readers hooked. He was writing in the 1870?s ! It seems to me that, as part of an evolutionary process, what we see in the newspapers is basically a fine-tuned reflection of what the readers want . . . Which is a disturbing thought to say the least.
In the UK, the SUN is by far the most popular newspaper ? in fact, I think it?s the most popular in Europe. If you haven?t seen a copy ? don?t bother searching for one. It will only make you depressed.
I think maybe the problem is rooted in the definition of ‘newspaper’ that we were given when we were kids — that it’s a written account of what’s happening in the world. So we keep expecting it to be just that, instead of what it really is — a selected assortment of other people’s perceptions.
I think that may be one of the attractions of blogging and reading blogs. When a blogger posts a link to a story, there’s no assumption that the story is important, just interesting. The dog-attack victim job is interesting, but not important. I agree with Janice that people expect the news at the front to be important first, interesting second, even though their spending habits show that people are more likely to look at something ‘interesting’ than ‘important.’ And yes, in my view the job of newspapers is in part to make the important interesting.
Well, you have to admit that it was awful nice of them to write back. Twice. Man, I have yet to have any response, personal or otherwise, for commentary I’ve sent regarding news. The only things that receive a response are thank you notes.