News-story selection and placement in a newspaper is always subjective and heavily prone to bias by editors. However, everything cannot be on the front-page. Everyone wants their pet issues amplified on the front-page.

The alleged massive ‘JFK-Plot’ is a textbook example of government propaganda. I too am surprised that the Times mustered the courage not to give it top billing– they’ve been very cooperative with such government manipulation in recent years.

Their new ombudsman is already jousting at windmills.

Those infatuated with 9/11 emotions can’t get enough “news-coverage” of that event … nor idle speculation of similar events. Facts and probabilities are non-relevant to that needed emotional stimulus; any hint of terrorism potential, no matter how factually insignificant, must be given ‘front-page’ glorification… especially in NYC.

Objectivity and a clear sense of world history… ain’t all that useless to journalists.

If you examine the criticism of the handling of the several most visible cases where the government has claimed to have foiled a plot you will find that they all share some things in common. First the threat was never very immediate. These groups have no training or expertise, no access to explosives or advanced weapons and their only ties to “terrorist” organizations is usually through an FBI informant. Many would consider this entrapment, not thwarting a plot.

When it comes time to prosecute these cases the charges filed never match the claims made at the time of the arrest. Even the infamous shoe bomber case has fallen apart.

So what has happened is that many people are starting to see these cases as “wag the dog”. If, on the other hand, you wish to generalize your complaint to one where the general issue of what gets featured as the most important stories of the day is questioned, I think you have a case.

I’m always surprised (amused?) to see the lead story on the BBC appear on page 11 in the Times, or the lead story on the TV news appear as four lines on the last page of the local section. Obviously different news organizations are using different criteria.

Does the Times, as the paper of “record”, have more of an obligation to prioritize stories better or are they just trying to sell papers with a catchy headline, like everyone else?