Friday, April 10, 2009

Bloggers say Kansas City Star hasn't delivered on its promise to increase local coverage

Earlier this week, the Kansas City Star announced it was folding the Metro section into the A section to increase local coverage. John Lofflin and Matt Kelsey look at Thursday's KC Star and conclude the amount of local news is about what it was before the announcement:
This morning the front page read exactly like front pages before the promise of local news. The lead story was datelined Washington and written by a McClatchy correspondent. It did not mention Kansas City on page one. The second was a “localized” story, an obviously unoriginal take on yesterday's Wall Street Journal piece concerning security at utility plants. Call this “semi-local” just to be generous. The third piece was also “localized;” a story about a new television reality show with a quote from a local attorney barely squeezed onto page one before the jump. The fourth was a story about brown fat, again “localized.” Anyone with Internet access or a subscription could have read about this yesterday in the New York Times.

Now you know how the Star defines local… so far. Major league franchises, Washington D.C., and -- count 'em -- three “localized” stories, two reported yesterday in other newspapers.

And they wonder why the Grand old man is sinking?
Maybe the Star did a better job with local news today. Any KC readers want to leave a report on Friday's paper?

Hat tip: comments

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Feedback: Star's 25¢ TV Mag
By hearne
“That brings us to the reported plethora of angry and/or confused callers ripping into the Star’s main complaining about getting nicked for 25 cents a week to keep Sunday’s anemic Star TV “entertainment magazine” coming.

Columnist insert: “Since when does a single canned story, a jumble and a teensy-weensy crossword puzzle an entertainment magazine make?“