Demagogue

Following up on Frederick's post, I came across this from Editor and Publisher

New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof's attack on the press for underreporting the atrocities and genocide in Darfur, which ran in today's paper, drew the ire of some newspaper editors, who said, in interviews with E&P, that they are doing the best they can with what they have.

Limited resources, as well as a war in Iraq, terrorist coverage, and, some admit, a lack of understanding or interest by readers in the Sudanese region's problems, are all part of the reason that the Darfur story is not top of budget.

[edit]

Most editors who spoke with E&P agreed that the Darfur story should get more attention due to its seriousness. But, each reminded Kristoff of the realities at today's daily papers. Budget cuts, other worldwide stories like Irag and terrorism, and limited reader interest, require a broad approach, they said.

"If we don't cover the Michael Jacksons, that will be our demise," said John Yearwood, world editor of The Miami Herald. "That is what the public wants. But, we ought to make the commitment to also give Darfur or Rwanda attention if we can."

What the public wants and what warrants coverage are two completely different things.