Tweet
Editor & Publisher
July 26 2005
Newspaper Editors Shoot Back At Kristof's Darfur Complaint
Aya Kawano
By Joe Strupp
NEW YORK 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, has drawn the ire of some newspaper editors who
said 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.
James F. Smith, foreign editor of The Boston Globe and a former
African correspondent, agrees that more Darfur attention could be
given, but said that is the case for many foreign hot spots.
"Nicholas Kristof may be very upset about Darfur, but there are other
places that need attention," he said, noting a Globe two-page spread
on life in the Congo that ran two weeks ago. "We felt the need to
tell people about that, too. I have groups in here all the time --
from India, Venezuela -- who say we don't write enough about them,
either."
Jim Willse, editor of The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J. had the same
explanation. "We don't have anywhere near as much as we'd like to
have," he said of Darfur reporting. "Papers our size are constantly
having to make choices on anything to cover. I agree Darfur is worth
more attention than it is receiving. But we cannot be in all the
places that are newsworthy."
Steve Butler, foreign editor of Knight Ridder, said he has been
hampered by having no African correspondent since his last one left
in December. "We have been keeping our Iraq coverage going and that
is a more important story," he said. "It has U.S. soldiers there,
people are very interested in it, and it lends itself better to
breaking news."
Kristof's column, which slammed broadcast and cable outlets even
harder than newspapers, complained that too many news outlets were
ignoring the African bloodshed in favor of tabloid news such as the
Michael Jackson trial and "runaway bride." The media "need to show
that we serve the public good -- which means covering genocides as
seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise," he wrote in part. "In some
ways we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even
covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian
genocide in 1915."
Kristof singled out his own paper and The Washington Post for praise
on this issue, however.
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 Iraq 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."
There are "a lot of issues to cover in Africa," said Martin Baron,
editor of The Boston Globe, who said he has just one correspondent
for the entire continent. "We have made a lot of efforts using
stringers to cover Darfur, and the local people here who have done a
lot to provide help. I can't imagine what [resources] we could give
up to cover it more."
USA Today Foreign Editor James Cox also pointed to the numerous areas
of international coverage just as deserving as Darfur that are not
properly pursued. "None of us in the American news media have done
enough to cover Darfur," he admits. "But that could be said for
almost any story in Africa. How many stories are unfolding in Latin
America, too? We get to them when we have the resources to and when
we think the time is right to be there."
Cox pointed to a two-day series USA Today ran in May on Darfur,
stressing the difficulty the paper had in even getting a visa for
reporter Rick Hampson to travel there. "It was excruciatingly
difficult to get the permission," he said. "We had an application
that had been stalled for months."
Unfortunately, many editors also admit a lack of reader interest and
understanding of the Darfur situation, a story that remains
complicated and continues to evolve.
"It is confusing and it goes one step forward, one step back," said
Ned Warwick, national foreign editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"We are served best by doing the step-back-and-take-a-look enterprise
story every couple of weeks."
Butler of Knight Rider agreed, noting, "Darfur is a different
character of coverage. It lends itself more to feature stories."
July 26 2005
Newspaper Editors Shoot Back At Kristof's Darfur Complaint
Aya Kawano
By Joe Strupp
NEW YORK 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, has drawn the ire of some newspaper editors who
said 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.
James F. Smith, foreign editor of The Boston Globe and a former
African correspondent, agrees that more Darfur attention could be
given, but said that is the case for many foreign hot spots.
"Nicholas Kristof may be very upset about Darfur, but there are other
places that need attention," he said, noting a Globe two-page spread
on life in the Congo that ran two weeks ago. "We felt the need to
tell people about that, too. I have groups in here all the time --
from India, Venezuela -- who say we don't write enough about them,
either."
Jim Willse, editor of The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J. had the same
explanation. "We don't have anywhere near as much as we'd like to
have," he said of Darfur reporting. "Papers our size are constantly
having to make choices on anything to cover. I agree Darfur is worth
more attention than it is receiving. But we cannot be in all the
places that are newsworthy."
Steve Butler, foreign editor of Knight Ridder, said he has been
hampered by having no African correspondent since his last one left
in December. "We have been keeping our Iraq coverage going and that
is a more important story," he said. "It has U.S. soldiers there,
people are very interested in it, and it lends itself better to
breaking news."
Kristof's column, which slammed broadcast and cable outlets even
harder than newspapers, complained that too many news outlets were
ignoring the African bloodshed in favor of tabloid news such as the
Michael Jackson trial and "runaway bride." The media "need to show
that we serve the public good -- which means covering genocides as
seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise," he wrote in part. "In some
ways we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even
covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian
genocide in 1915."
Kristof singled out his own paper and The Washington Post for praise
on this issue, however.
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 Iraq 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."
There are "a lot of issues to cover in Africa," said Martin Baron,
editor of The Boston Globe, who said he has just one correspondent
for the entire continent. "We have made a lot of efforts using
stringers to cover Darfur, and the local people here who have done a
lot to provide help. I can't imagine what [resources] we could give
up to cover it more."
USA Today Foreign Editor James Cox also pointed to the numerous areas
of international coverage just as deserving as Darfur that are not
properly pursued. "None of us in the American news media have done
enough to cover Darfur," he admits. "But that could be said for
almost any story in Africa. How many stories are unfolding in Latin
America, too? We get to them when we have the resources to and when
we think the time is right to be there."
Cox pointed to a two-day series USA Today ran in May on Darfur,
stressing the difficulty the paper had in even getting a visa for
reporter Rick Hampson to travel there. "It was excruciatingly
difficult to get the permission," he said. "We had an application
that had been stalled for months."
Unfortunately, many editors also admit a lack of reader interest and
understanding of the Darfur situation, a story that remains
complicated and continues to evolve.
"It is confusing and it goes one step forward, one step back," said
Ned Warwick, national foreign editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"We are served best by doing the step-back-and-take-a-look enterprise
story every couple of weeks."
Butler of Knight Rider agreed, noting, "Darfur is a different
character of coverage. It lends itself more to feature stories."