Dear New York Times: Do you really—really, in your heart of hearts—think that the following is an appropriate use of your “Breaking News Alert” feature?
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, July 24, 2009 — 3:03 PM ET
——-
Obama Says He Regrets His Language on Gates Arrest
President Obama said Friday that he “could have calibrated” his words more carefully in the racially-charged controversy over the arrest of a Harvard professor, making a surprise appearance at the daily White House briefing to try and cool the tensions surrounding the case.
Mr. Obama said he had talked to the arresting officer and hoped the case could become “a teachable moment” to be used to improve relations between minorities and police officers.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
The president making a surprise appearance in front of the press to moderate his language on a case that has dominated several news cycles? Mmm. Is yes an acceptable answer?
#1 Posted by Aron Pilhofer, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 07:18 AM
Megan, I tend to agree with you, but surmise in today's quick "oneupsmanship" news cycle, Breaking News Alert is now a relative term.
Perhaps Super Breaking News Alert could be reserved for truly important news items, while something like Super Duper Breaking News Alert would apply to natural disasters or other life-threatening conditions.
#2 Posted by Chris W., CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 05:14 PM