There were lots of unhappy phone calls to The News & Observer last Tuesday after The N&O buried on a back page a story about nine soldiers killed in Iraq the day before.

"I cannot believe you put the article about nine of our soldiers from Fort Bragg being killed in Iraq on Page 12," said Deborah Albertine of Raleigh. "Yet we have an article on 'Cooper dines in style after lacrosse interview' on Page One. Where are your priorities?"

Actually, there is a reasonable explanation. The Associated Press story came to The N&O late Monday, and it did not include the fact that the soldiers were from Fort Bragg in Fayetteville. Editors on duty heard a rumor to that effect but were unable to confirm it before press time. They did run a note on the front page referring readers to the inside story and followed up with a front-page story Wednesday about the impact on Fort Bragg. An editorial commemorating the loss appeared the same day. On Friday, pictures of the dead paratroopers ran on Page 1, with profiles inside the paper.

We can debate whether the initial story about nine soldiers killed in Iraq should have gone to the front page anyway, but the case does raise the question of The N&O's treatment of Iraq War stories in general.

l l l

I TEND TO GET TWO KINDS OF INPUT from readers on this. Liberals want the paper to run Iraq stories on the front page every day, to keep that war in the face of Americans. State Sen. Ellie Kinnaird of Carrboro stopped me after church the other day to ask The N&O to run Iraq casualty figures on Page One every day.

But conservatives say the paper overplays the bad news from Iraq, to make the Bush administration look bad. Military reporter Jay Price received this e-mail about his Wednesday story on the "staggering number of casualties" among the 82nd Airborne Division at Bragg: "You must have not been around during Vietnam (and) Korea, to consider 18 KIA's in five weeks 'staggering.' You must be a Democrat (Communist/Socialist). It would take greater than 80 consecutive years of combat at the rate of the Iraq war to equate Vietnam."

I asked the two editors most responsible for the war coverage, front-page editor Steve Merelman and Nation/World editor Ann Kennedy, to explain the decision-making for Iraq stories. The main reason more don't go on Page One, both said, is the eight-hour time difference between Baghdad and Raleigh, which makes stories from Iraq old news before you see them in the paper. Big stories usually have run all day on television and the Internet the day before they get into The N&O.

Here are other factors in the decision-making process:

• How high are the casualty figures?

• Do they involve U.S. troops, or Iraqis? On April 19, a story about 183 Iraqi civilians killed in one day ran on Page 3A.

• What is the other news of the day? The Iraqi slaughter had to compete with the Virginia Tech killings.

• Is there a local angle? Troops from North Carolina get more coverage than those from elsewhere.

And, Merelman says, The N&O wants to put stories on the front that you can't get elsewhere. "In an ever-increasing competitive environment, we focus on what we can give you alone," he said. That might be a local angle on the Fort Bragg deaths, as Price and reporter Ben Niolet provided Wednesday. Or it might be an exclusive from McClatchy News Service, which looks for Iraq stories not covered by other media.

l l l

WHY DOESN'T THE N&O PUT IRAQ on the front page every day, as one contingent asks? Two reasons that I see. First, if the paper did that, Iraq stories would become "furniture," unnoticed and passed over by readers scanning the front. The more important reason is that The N&O doesn't use the front page to serve political agendas or make partisan statements. The page is to tell you the most important news of the day with a balance of local and Nation/World stories (OK, and to offer a "bright" or two to lighten your load).

Next page >

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.