news-record.com

In a comment on the post about Ted Kennedy's death below, Brian captures a sentiment that I think many Boomer newspaper readers share. The story about his death should have been played more prominently on the front page, even though it contained no new information and most likely wouldn't even be read. 

I don't really want to read the story: I've formed my opinion about Kennedy a long time ago, and I doubt I'd learn much new....

Still, even when it's off-cycle, even when the event is expected, even when there's little new to say, even if the Thrillerphilics don't care, the death of a major politician should be on the front page. It's a matter of priorities. Kennedy has his fingers all over modern America (civil rights, OSHA, No Child, Bork, etc.), and a newspaper should, IMO, register that publicly.

His observation is a great one because it captures a conundrum that newspaper editors face: When does historical significance trump everything. Normally, we want the front page to contain a good mix of stories with various amounts of news of local importance and interest. In our case, the trump card is normally local. We certainly try not to put stories on the front page that we think most people won't read.

Brian's comment supports the long tradition of newspaper decision-making. And in the old days of, say, 2007, we would have given Kennedy's death a larger presence on the front page. In the last few years, we have been moving away from that tradition. Now we try to provide local readers with a paper filled with information that they don't get elsewhere. Our front page should look different from every other front page of every other newspaper because our community is different from Raleigh or Charlotte or High Point or Boston.

Most days. Was Thursday different? I hear readers saying that it was. Is there another national figure out there who has the longevity (and age) to merit front page play? (I'm not talking about someone dying before his time.) The pope? Elie Wiesel? Sen. Byrd?