I meant to post this last week but travel etc got in the way. Did anyone see the lengthy piece in the NY Times last Thursday revealing that — gasp — when it comes to terrorism coverage, “The further a publication is situated from the New York and Washington areas, where the risk was said to be greatest, the less coverage the threats often received.”
It goes on and on, quoting for example, Fred Zipp the Managing Editor of the Austin-American Statesman: “If the warning had been that Al Qaeda is going to attack the tower on the University of Texas campus or a University of Texas football game, then we would have been equally aggressive.”
What’s shocking is that this might be shocking to the folks at the New York Times. Do they think New York City and Washington are so beloved and revered that newspapers in Texas should treat events — even important ones — 2,000 miles away with the same intensity. All of the papers in question gave the terror threats front page treatment, just not saturation coverage.
Maybe this phenomenon explains why the LA Times covers earthquakes in California with a bit more enthusiasm than earthquakes in Uzbekistan?