They really need to fix that crocodile problem in Western Springs Park.EDIT: Some clever anonymous commentator pointed out that the Guardian is running a series of these photos on their site. Firstly, if the Guardian put a photo of a crocodile on the front page unrealted to any story, that would be rubbish - I'm not sure why anyone thinks I would deny that. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination to 'edit' every newspaper in the world.
Incidentally, here's the front page of the most recent Guardian:
The man in the photo, in case you're unaware, is David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party. You may notice the actual article accompanying the shot.(Not a crocodile.)
Posts
Since the Herald started running these photos I've cancelled my subscription to National Geographic.
ReplyDeleteActually, today's Guardian is running a series of five shots of the same image. Five times the value of the Herald, I guess.
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't keep doing it if it didn't sell newspapers. That's the only reason they do it, because more people buy it with that photo on it than any other kind of photo.
ReplyDelete"They wouldn't keep doing it if it didn't sell newspapers."
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean we can expect Page 3 girls any time soon? I would definately start buying the Herald if they did that.
No, because page three girls would turn off more readers than it would attract. Everybody likes nice, inoffensive nature shots, except for people who want some actual news, but they're vastly outnumbered by the amount of people who will pick up the paper to see if the croc got away.
ReplyDeleteI work for Fullers and someone from the Herald rang up the other day asking if one of the Ferries had ever accidentally hit a Whale or Dolphin!?! As far as i can tell this enquiry wasn't spurred by any particular incident, and the answer was no. I think the reporter must have just been digging for some nautical gold, or perhaps they had a picture of a whale looking confused and they wanted to flesh ouit the caption?
ReplyDelete"Mr Smith said...
ReplyDeleteNo, because page three girls would turn off more readers than it would attract. Everybody likes nice, inoffensive nature shots, except for people who want some actual news, but they're vastly outnumbered by the amount of people who will pick up the paper to see if the croc got away."
Mr Smith, I think you've missed my point. That is, the NZ Herald publishing a nice picture on the front page to sell papers is populist crap. The front page is a place of prominence for pretty important stories. You know, Serious Stuff. What is the Herald saying when they publish nature pictures in place of headline news? "We don't care about the news, but look at this hippo eating a croc!"?
Despite being outed as the 'clever anonymous commentator', I wholeheartedly agree with your observations about the NZH's fascination with front page animal pictures. This, of course, is the reason why I prefer to read the NZH through your rose-tinted specs. But I'm really waiting for a fluffy kitten/lambs gambolling amongst the daffodils sort of picture to accompany a really meaty front page article like 'Auckland Grammar School boy arrested selling forged licenses'; oops, somehow or another the NZH failed to mention AGS.
ReplyDeleteI want to know why the really interesting nautical animal story of late - the shark caesarean at Kelly Tarltin's - only made it onto page 3. Don't they like local shark stories? Aren't they as glamorous or populist as overseas shark stories?
ReplyDeleteSince the heralds publication of this wildlife epic Stuff has run the story online too (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/3075241/Photos-Hippos-attack-crocodile/)
ReplyDeleteYou may notice the final line of the article, 'One of these pictures was originally published in the November issue of BBC Wildlife Magazine' So, I guess that this means it was a pretty big story for a BBC subtopic right? Have a quick look at http://www.bbcwildlifemagazine.com/currentIssue.asp and the cover story of the November issue has nothing to do with this insident.
In short the cover story of the Herald equates to filler in a BBC magazine... fact
Oh for godsakes! What's so wrong with an interesting nature-pic on the front page? "Populist crap" - how dare a newspaper be popular! How about the obscure rubbish the New York Times publishes, eg. a front page story on New Zealand's (apparently pretty good) management of hoki stocks back in September - oh yeah, that draws the punters in.
ReplyDeletePapers have to sell and if it takes a few pretty shots to do it, then why not? At least they're interesting, pretty pictures.
Of course, last week the Hone Harawira story was criticised on here for being of little public interest. Unfortunately, it appears James forgot to tell the public about this. Maybe s/he should alert the public to his decision that he pretty pictures are a disgrace.
Becasue that's what we need - someone else (alongside Granny Herald, right?) telling us what is and what is not newsworthy. Oh the blessed irony/hypocrisy/other big words!
"Oh for godsakes! What's so wrong with an interesting nature-pic on the front page? "Populist crap" - how dare a newspaper be popular!"
ReplyDeleteAppealing to a law common denominator is not the only way to sell newspapers. Good reporting is a great way to sell newspapers. The Herald is putting filler on its front page.
Maybe you just have really low expectations?
I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence saying these pictures sell newspapers. It's common practice for magazine editors to track which (or more likely whose) picture shifts paper.
ReplyDeleteThere was some work looking at newspaper covers done many years ago - does any one know of more recent surveys?
Years ago at the the wanganui chronicle they used to have the front pages of the highest selling papers up on the wall. They all had photos of local car crashes on the front page. Every one of them.
ReplyDeleteSo The Guardian puts a giant picture that is related to a story on the front page, while the Herald puts a giant picture with a little bit of a caption on the front page and only one of these is considered filler?
ReplyDeleteYes that's right, they're both fillers. But so what? Better than an ad, right? And anyway, arguably the hippo picture is news in itself - the first time an incident like this has been captured on film since, well, since aaaaages ago (probably).
yep. you're way off target here as well, James.
ReplyDeleteBrad: "How ship strikes are killing Auckland's whale population" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609147
ReplyDeleteFor God's sake - what kind of bullshit argument is "THE GUARDIAN DO IT SO THE HERALD CAN"?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it would work if this site were called DEFENDING THE GUARDIAN, but it's not. Of course both pictures are filler - did you even read what I wrote? - but I think there is a significant difference in degree between a picture related to a serious matter of politics and one of a crocodile. If you want LOLCATZ, that's what the internet is for.
If it were an isolated incident, I would be sympathetic. But it's not. As I pointed out, it's the fourth picture of a hilarious watery creature in a couple of months.
Heh. FEEL THE PRESSURE.
ReplyDeleteHahahahaha it would be so awesome if the Herald had daily LOLCATZ on the front page. I'd totally buy it.
ReplyDeleteErm ,James, you were the one who pointed out that the Guardian has a large picture accompanying an article, therefore it's ok, even though the picture is completely inane and overly ginormous. Essentially, you're praising the standards of the Guardian, despite it's gratuitious use of mildly relevant imagery.
ReplyDeleteAt least the Herld's photo made you go, "jeepers creepers!". Well, it did me.
Maybe it's part of the new editorial policy - animals don't sue.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think that conspiracy theory could get any more half arsed. Apparently now, it has.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry James, but isn't the whole thrust of this blog 'that bloody NZ Herald is really crap and can't hope to lick the boots of those furrin' professional papers'?
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's more than relevant that the other papers struggle in the same way.
Jordan said...
ReplyDeleteBrad: "How ship strikes are killing Auckland's whale population" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609147
Ha ha, cheers - I was surprised to see that this article was actually quite a thorough investigation of the subject, with views and opinions taken from multiple sources and compiled in a thoughtful manner.
Then I read this, which is what I assume happened once the editor got hold of it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/geoff-cumming/news/article.cfm?a_id=88&objectid=10609219
Is it just me, or does the 'lite' version display the same facts in a different context? Obviously you can't retain the same depth of information while cutting out that amount of text, but it really seems they just kept the facts and numbers which would seem most alarming to people reading it, and ditched te rest? Maybe I've just been visiting this site for too long?