Story 1
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/conn_house_where_died_in_fire_is_9L1w0pmo2b5XztIYVOWWQI ➚
Story 2
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/texas-police-man-in-1274499.html ➚
In the first, the home is owned by a fashion marketing executive, and one of the victims played Santa at Saks Fifth Avenue. The story is tragic, and I am very sorry for them. The second has a Santa too, but he was the killer, and the family was anonymous. This story is tragic too, and I also feel sorry for them.
I'm not suggesting one merits more or less attention than the other (you know me better than that); I'm wondering why the press gave the first so much coverage, when, aside from the Nigerian church bombings, these two events stand out as singularly tragic on Christmas day, and both involve children and Santas in key roles.
Quite a few news outlets apparently decided you and I are more interested in the first, would watch it closer and respond better to the ads that would accompany it.
That is tragic as well.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Why did two Christmas Day tragedies get different coverage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my experience studying Media Theory, news outlets don't decide what we are more or less interested in, they decide what we are interested in.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine there is very little room for A/B testing in big media.
I think you are right, they don't do much a/b, but I think they do a lot of "if not a, then b," Ie, try A, if it doesn't work, try B, then C, until you reach that magical match between story and images and ratings.
ReplyDelete