• by John Gaffney , May 5, 2003

Caught In A Trap: If newspapers want to retain the relevance and momentum they seem to have gained from the Iraqi conflict, they will need to do a more provocative job of covering the 2004 presidential election. Case in point: the Democratic candidate debate held Saturday. Yes, it's too early in the season. And yes, these guys are about as exciting as a PBS pledge drive. But there were some real issues discussed. Yet, all the newspaper coverage I saw was about how unimpressive this group is. The following from The Washington Times was typical: "Democratic presidential candidates, who nearly spent more time criticizing each other than President Bush in Saturday night's debate, got poor-to-lackluster reviews from political analysts." Who cares about political analysts? If newspapers want to keep readers and advertisers they need to leave the judgments behind and get the issues upfront, in my opinion. So far, we're off to a bad start.

Having Said That: I was helping to clean out a relatives' house over the weekend and came across the final issue of Look magazine from 1972. It was a compilation of great photos from the magazine's history and testament to the power of photojournalism. Although that was a magazine that made its living on photojournalism, the art has been one of the engine's making newspapers a great read once again. For me the enduring image of the Iraqi conflict was not shock and awe. It was the skull that I saw on page one of The New York Times that stands more clearly in my memory.

At The Buzzer: We're being a bit tough on Ashleigh Banfield aren't we? I thought she was a talented reporter.