E-Media Tidbits

Yahoo News AP reported why this outdated cover ran nationwide, but didn't challenge Parade's explanation.

This past Sunday, the obviously outdated cover-story headline for Parade magazine, "Is Benazir Bhutto America's best hope against al-Qaeda," puzzled and bemused subscribers to the roughly 400 newspapers which distribute the magazine supplement. Odd to see this headline running 10 days after Bhutto's Dec. 27 assassination! Tidbits contributor Steve Outing aptly retorted, "Only if you believe in reincarnation."

The same day, Parade leapt into damage-control mode, offering explanations in this AP story: "[Publisher] Randy Siegel said Parade went to press on Dec. 21 and was already on its way to the 400 newspapers that distribute it when Bhutto was killed in a Dec. 27 shooting and bombing attack at a campaign rally in her country. The Web version of the story was updated, Siegel said, but it was too late to change the magazine. He said the only option other than running the outdated article would have been asking newspapers not to distribute the magazine at all. 'We decided that this was an important interview to share with the American people,' he said."

Fair enough, Parade deserves to present its side. However, what struck me about the article was that AP (a news org that's been publishing on a continuous news cycle for decades) failed to challenge Parade's practices.

The questions are obvious: How can a publication with a two-week gap between printing and distribution hope to cover news? Should Parade get out of the news business and stick to evergreen features -- at least for its cover and other high-profile stories? Can, and will, Parade change its processes to keep its news timely?

Sadly, the egg isn't just on Parade's face. In the eyes of readers, the outdated Parade cover probably undermined the credibility of every newspaper that distributed it. (At this point, I don't know whether any papers declined to distribute the supplement over this flap.)

AP reported that "Many newspapers including the [Washington] Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Houston Chronicle ran editor's notes on the front page or elsewhere explaining that the magazine had gone to press before Bhutto's death." Other papers, such as the Daily Camera in my hometown of Boulder, CO, did not (according to Outing).

Are such editor's notes sufficient to maintain paper's credibility in the eyes of readers? I doubt it. Personally, I think that when you choose to bundle any kind of insert in your paper, you're lending it your brand's credibility. Readers may not know and probably won't care that Parade is published independently and printed on a very different schedule. They expect daily papers and all they contain to be timely -- at least with nothing outdated by more than 24 hours.

This is reflected in the reader complaints many papers are receiving about this flap. Several papers, such as the Chicago Tribune, are publishing and responding to these complaints. Check out the Tribune's wrapup on this flap by public editor Tim McNulty. He wrote:

"Readers hold the newspaper accountable for everything that appears under its name. Whether the Chicago Tribune label should continue to appear on Parade magazine is now under discussion. Tribune publisher Scott Smith said ...'We did it at the request of the Parade publisher, who concluded that the issue would still be of interest to its readers.' ...Randy Siegel said it would have cost several millions of dollars to update the article, even to put a Post-It type note on the magazine. He also said creating a delay in sending out Parade may have resulted in newspapers not receiving copies in time to insert the magazines into their Sunday editions.

"...How many readers would have complained if, for whatever the reason, the magazine was missing on Sunday? The editor's note in the Tribune was insufficient for some of those who saw it, and many did not. Smith said he was sorry that many readers either did not see the explanation or disagreed with the decision to distribute the magazine."

Nice try, but that explanation doesn't seem to hold water with readers. Check out the more than 150 responses (so far) to McNulty's piece.

Library of Congress Deja vu, anyone?

For example, reader Brian Sullivan commented, "I no longer trust the judgment of Tribune editors. When money becomes the overriding factor in editorial decisions, then all credibility has been lost." And reader Dominick quipped, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN -- AGAIN!" (Ouch, another infamous headline gaffe that ran in the Chicago Tribune.)

But perhaps most poignant was Vince Bray's comment on how this feature could have enhanced credibility for both publications: "Leaving an article with such relevance without update is a BIG faux pas. They blew a chance to say, we wrote a very prescient article, not a stale one."

Meanwhile, there may be more to the business side of this flap that may make some papers at least appear complicit. Journalists might want to dig into allegations concerning distribution contracts and finances that surfaced in the blog Evolving Excellence.