Today's Star Tribune front page featured this headline, which reminds me the Strib copy editors aren't writing for radio.
A few pages later, I ran across this headline/photo juxtaposition, which struck me as completely inappropriate for a news story.
Clearly, this image is being used as a photo illustration ("Obama is seeing red ink as far as the eye can see!") rather than as a news photo. The caption refers to Obama's session with Republicans last Friday -- leading me to assume the photo was taken there, perhaps when Obama was trying to see through some glaring lights? -- but the story is not about that session and makes no mention of it at all. (I can't link to the story because it's not on the Strib website.)
I seem to recall that this misuse of news photography is a big no-no in newsrooms. Photo illustrations are limited to the editorial and features pages, not the news pages. It's one of the few things left to differentiate them from the sea of opinion and regurgitation we call the media in the age of the interweb.
Monday, February 1, 2010
A Star Tribune Double-Header
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Disturbing, not least because so few readers know to make the distinction you are pointing out.(Thanks for that.) Bad call, Strib: it reads as an editorial comment.
Post a Comment