tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493853021140415574.post413331733511002753..comments2022-03-24T06:45:59.215-04:00Comments on ignoblus, for the moment: NY Times buries USHMM shootingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493853021140415574.post-35689203918230678582009-06-11T18:15:51.829-04:002009-06-11T18:15:51.829-04:00I don't know if it's fair, but I had thoug...I don't know if it's fair, but I had thought of their Holocaust coverage, too. I don't think the WashPo makes a very good comparison, since it's a local story for them, but the LATimes does. <br /><br />At the moment, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/12shoot.html?_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">this</a> is barely noticable on the NYTImes front page. But the LATimes now has an even less prominent mention.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05146833770654841724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493853021140415574.post-38025867932090428112009-06-11T17:36:04.465-04:002009-06-11T17:36:04.465-04:00I wondered about this too. On the web page yesterd...I wondered about this too. On the web page yesterday it was listed among other U.S. stories, and in today's print paper, there's only a photo on page 1, with the full story on p. 15. It made me think of the Times coverage of events of the Holocaust itself - which rarely made the front page of the newspaper. Are the Sulzbergers still afraid of being seen as too concerned with "parochial" Jewish affairs? Another thing is that the Times article was not updated through the day yesterday, unlike the Washington Post article (and there were several of them including an editorial).Rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626228106192215280noreply@blogger.com