Maybe because it’s the most interesting story of the day. It’s what people are taking about. Would the average reader be more apt to read that story or a story about Chinese inflation?
And headlines like that might help rack sales for a day, but the bulk of people getting the paper have subscriptions and they tend to get them for obits, sports and school news.
Hmmm, I’m thinking the average reader would go for the blood and guts and scandal. Am I right?
So that’s what they deliver?
I can’t speak for the US, but I’d imagine it’s the same as here, where the major news organisations have an Illustrations Department whose job it is to find or acquire images- the journalist themselves isn’t usually in charge of that sort of thing.
If they know of a suitable image they can certainly suggest it, but a journo on a metro daily is probably far too busy to be looking for illustrations to accompany the story they’re writing. And the final choice of picture (along with everything else in the paper, for the most part) is down to the editor, not the individual journalist (again, IME)
I’m guessing that the editor would have a vested interest in selling as many papers as possible?
And would know what the average reader wants? And will know how to squeeze every penny out of them?
Agreed, Martin had grown a lot since the commonly used photo had been taken. So why isn’t a later photo of him being circulated? Maybe because there isn’t one available.
Why would a local newspaper editor NOT know that police mug shots are available and how to get them? In fact, local newspapers eat, sleep and poop mug shots. Particularly when writing a crime story, that’s the first thing you look for.
Tsk, so many conspiracy theories, so little proof.
The blood, guts and scandals story tend to be more interesting. But you better believe that if we didn’t run obits or local sports stories, readers would be livid. Our paper cut back on print TV listings a few years ago and readers called and wrote in for months.
That’s the Ace tucked under the sleeve of every newspaper editor in the U.S.!
How would he know Zimmerman’s mug shot was available? Zimmerman wasn’t arrested.
Dufus:
I am not a liberal. As a matter of fact I am a conservative, leaning libertarian.
When I post here, I try to be as objective as possible, since it is an admittedly left-leaning site because I only post on objective threads.
My interest is knowledge.
It may bother me that others don’t follow my intentions, but that is a matter for the posters and administrators. I try not to offend any viewpoint when posting on Cafe Society or General Questions.
I like facts regardless of the source.
The Orlando Sentinel released the 2005 booking photo of Zimmerman provided by the Orange County Jail. I would guess the Sentinel didn’t have a lot of photos of George Zimmerman lying around, so they probably searched their photo or the jail’s archives and that was the pic that popped up. That simple.
Not really. Finding a mugshot is as difficult as finding out if the the person has ever been arrested in the county, and if so getting the mugshot from that arrest. Newspapers run mugshots all the time. As stated correctly above, they truly do eat, sleep and poop mugshots.
He wouldn’t have. He’d have immediately looked to see if Zimmerman had ever been arrested and consequently had a mugshot, and then nearly crapped his pants with delight when it turned out that there was one.
The GQ answer has already been covered – they use what’s available by deadline.
Without altogether straying into GD territory: There’s a line, however thin, between yellow journalism and simply producing interesting content. Every writer, journalist or otherwise, needs to write material interesting to an audience or they won’t be a writer much longer. Newspapers that continually miss the popularity mark don’t stay alive. Editors that routinely put boring stories on the front page drive down sales and don’t stay around. Sensationalism is thus a necessary vice of both the market and the medium. Where the line gets crossed is where the need for sensationalism overtakes accuracy and truth, and in so doing, the publication slides into the realm of entertainment instead of news.
With that limitation in mind, respectable news outfits try hard to juggle their need for viewers with their need for neutrality and objectivity. Exactly where on that line they fall depends on their organizational culture and their target audience. That’s why you see differences in coverage and reporting style between college papers, tabloids, USA Today, the Economist, single-purpose blogs, etc.
The thing is… we as modern consumers of information no longer need to be subject to those same limitations. Previous generations had no choice but to watch whatever was on TV or the local papers. We have no such excuse.
Today, you can and should tailor your news coverage to suit your own needs and standards of reporting. There is really no reason you can’t become an educated, informed consumer of news rather than a passive pair of eyes. Find some good sources and stick with them. Or, in Google News, it’s easy to adjust coverage by section, keyword, or source. If you don’t care about entertainment or sports, filter them out altogether, front pages and headlines be damned. If certain organizations continuously put out sub-quality work, decrease their prominence or block them altogether. Many mainstream US news outfits, especially televised ones, target an unintellectual popular audience; foreign entities like the BBC or Al Jazeera often have more sensible criteria for coverage of US events. Similarly, written news typically have more details and overall better quality because they’re written as a purpose-built piece, not as an adjunct to a rushed 30-second TV spot. Pay attention to the quality differences between publications and over time you get a much better front page tailored to your own needs. There are a thousand news and entertainment outfits all shouting their crap into space, but you only have to pay selective attention to a few of them. Cut the crap, filter the fluff, and focus on the things most important to you.
Here’s an article from Poyner.org, which is pretty much the place to go online for journalism education and criticism.
They suggest that the suit-and-tie photo of Zimmerman was initially published when it was provided to a paper by a source — the paper published it under fair use, and moved it on the McClatchey-Tribune wire service. The article briefly discusses the logistics of publishing it under fair use.
There is also interesting discussion of a few other photos of Trayvon that were available but which haven’t been as widely spread.
Even if there are a lot of pictures of someone floating around on the Internet, you can run into rights issues.
And if you’re just picking something off of Facebook, it’s probably not high enough resolution. You need roughly 250 dpi or above for newsprint. Most pictures online are about 72 dpi and look pixelly if you try putting them into print.
I imagine they probably did a public records search on him and came up with his previous arrest. Oftentimes, mugshots are also available on the police department’s Web site or online database, so you wouldn’t even have to call over to get someone to e-mail it to you.
If Zimmerman isn’t talking to the press, I can’t imagine he’s providing them any pictures either.
Thank you for your post. It reminds me to “not be blinded to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals,and everywhere life is full of heroism”. Please accept my apologies if I have offended you.
But listening to even a few minutes of today’s news media is an insult to the intelligence of even a dufus like me. I can’t imagine how people of average intelligence can be completely sucked in by it!
Zimmerman isn’t. His dad is. Do you think the press had time in the last couple of weeks to ask Zimmerman’s family to provide a few recent photos?
Perhaps they did, but he just never sent them any.
[hijack]
Excuse me for briefly being a pendant, but because this is GQ and because I’ve had to deal with this very issue with my photo editor (who misunderstood it similarly and caused a lot of confusion), I’m going to try to point out the difference between resolution and DPI.
Resolution is the amount of information available in a picture – in this case, the number of pixels in the Facebook picture. A 1000 pixel by 1000 pixel digital picture has 1 megapixel of resolution.
DPI (dots per inch) is a ratio, a measure of resolution per area. That 1 MP digital picture can be printed at 100 DPI (10 in x 10 in) or 250 DPI (4 in x 4 in) or any other arbitrary DPI, depending on its intended physical size.
In other words, whether a Facebook photo is printed at 72 DPI or 250 DPI depends not on its resolution but on the interplay between its resolution and the intended print size. Most online photos are not 72 DPI because such a measurement makes no sense without specifying an accompanying physical size; they merely have a resolution measured in pixels. You can’t have dots (or pixels) per inch without specifying the inches.
Some of the confusion comes from (mainly) Adobe’s confusing practice of embedding a suggested DPI inside photos, but that’s not a measurement of anything, just a recommendation to the printer of the intended physical size. To add to the confusion, many computer monitors display at 72 DPI, but that’s because monitors, like printed images, have both resolution and physical size. A digital image, prior to display or printing, has no physical size.
[/hijack]
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I should have known, having worked on these types of things before. But I never dealt with the technical aspects of it, and was also always just told that “We needed a picture that’s 250 DPI” and that pictures pulled off the Web wouldn’t work for what we were doing. Basically, I had to get a picture with a lot of pixels.
Exactly – or print it on a smaller area. You can find them the highest-resolution source image available, but the print size (and thus DPI) will ultimately be up to the layout editor, not the photographer.