Placement of The Sudan Genocide Story

I was drawn to the New York Times today because of a large picture of a group of protestors on the front page. However, when I began to read the paper, I found myself searching for the story. I am confused because I would assume that a story which features a front page picture would be on the front page. Not only is not on the front page but it does not appear until the 18th page. As I began to read the story I discovered that it covers a 20-30k person demonstration in Central Park on Saturday to highlight the war in Darfur which has killed an estimated 200k people. Isn't that huge? I think it is. The New York Times will have a picture and feature of the Race for Breast Cancer on the front page of the paper but yet they can't include the story of why demonstrators are protesting against the killing in Sudan? Furthermore, Sudan won't let the UN in the country... do you think Iraq willing omitted America into the country? Aren't these people's lives worth fighting for? Apparently, not. I can't believe the UN would turn away so easily and why isn't this a major story that everyone is informed about?

If they compare the horrors of this war to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, then why isn't the story on the front page of the paper? How many people really read that far into the front section? I just think it is interesting that one, I haven't really heard anything in the media about this genocide and two, why isn't a story so huge as this featured on the front page. I think it is because there isn't the level of concern about Africa that there needs to be. Africa did not get in the horrible shape that it is in alone. Africa has been colonized, raped and battered for hundreds of years and yet when these people are in need of assistance in a really real way people have to protest in hopes of getting them help.

So, my question is... if the reason for the story on Sudan being on page 18 is due to a simple placement issue... couldn't the feature Unearthing a Town Pool, and Not for Whites Only be moved to page 18? Why was the decision made otherwise, because it really looks to me as though the New York Times is unsympathetic to the genocide happening in Darfur, Sudan.

Diana Britton @ September 18, 2006 - 10:24pm

I did the same exact thing when I opened up the newspaper; I couldn't find the story. However, I was actually pleasantly surprised to even see the picture on the front page. The picture is huge and it definitely draws the reader's attention immediately. I was at the rally on Sunday, and I definitely feel Darfur is an extremely important issue and the Times could give it more airtime. However, being there, I can understand why the Times wouldn't put the article on the front page. The rally was basically a concert with speakers interspersed. There were no riots or protests of violence or conflicts to report on. Don't get me wrong, I definitely think Darfur is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. I just thought it was a huge stride that the Times would even use the photo as their lede. Anyone who even looked at the photo would definitely take the time to turn to the page the article was on.

Crystal Smith @ September 20, 2006 - 8:56pm

In order to give the New York Times the benefit of doubt another possibility was brought to my attention which also leads me into another blog post. Perhaps the story was on the front page in order to arouse interest in reading further into the A section of the paper... or maybe they wanted to create sensationalism with the photo and that picture was the best that they had for the day?

Nadia Taha @ September 20, 2006 - 10:40pm

I found this great I.F. Stone quotation from an article in The Nation. He said the Washington Post was an exciting paper to read "because you never know on what page you would find a page-one story." It seems that is exactly what is happening with the New York Times these days.

Anonymous (not verified) @ December 15, 2006 - 5:49pm

I know this story is old but I just saw a tiny article in Newsweek. Newsweek did the same thing the Times did. So I waited until I got off of work so I could look it up and wow I am a really hard person but the stories I read about that place teared me up. It sad that the greatest country in the world is fighting for the wrong reasons . Why have these people been wrote off? Why are they dying from things they don't have to die from? Why are they starving and we throw good food out everyday? And when I read about the slavery, What Slavery? That just blew me out the door. Thats crazy. Our president is fighting for oil and when he gets the oil he's still not going to give those poor people nothing. Well everyone needs to know that the world is dying and we are dying. Tens of thousands of people has been killed in South Sudan, more than a million people are homeless. They are in the same population as we are they are humans , they bleed like we bleed, hurt like we hurt, they to are human beings they are above us nor below us. If the real story was in every paper you read , in the mail with junk mail etc. whats going on . If the world knew they were in the position there in and the money we send them could really go to them. THEY WOULD NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION>

Recent comments



Syndicate content