As a former front-page editor, I found the different approaches taken by three great newspapers in announcing the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder mildly interesting:
- Holder to Resign as Attorney General — The Wall Street Journal takes the plain, unadorned approach.
- Holder, Liberal Voice, to Quit as U.S. Attorney General — The New York Times throws in some analysis, bordering on making an editorial judgment. Interesting choice. Of course, this being the Times, we might see that as an honorific.
-
Eric Holder, first black attorney general, to resign — The Washington Post charts a middle ground. They wanted to say more than the WSJ was saying, but didn’t want to venture into subjectivity. So they point out something about him no one can argue with. Of course, if I’m Holder, I’d prefer the NYT approach. I’d be thinking, “That’s it? That’s all you think of when you see me?”
Yeah, I know. It seems like I think about these things too much. Well, I used to get paid to do that, and it’s hard to stop…
Related Posts
Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times — a newspaper I don’t look at much any more — went out on much more of a limb than the NYT, making value judgments outright:
Of course, it was the lede story in all four papers. That was the common factor, and the reason I found it interesting to look at small differences in their approaches.
Again, probably not very interesting to y’all…