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.
»