Benazir Bhutto on Parade
I’ve pretty much given up on my campaign to mock and/or eliminate Parade Magazine. It’s an embarrassing publication that no self-respecting American newspaper should include, but it’s not worth the time to regularly dissect its inanity. Particularly when it can embarrass itself so well.
This morning’s Parade Magazine (January 6th, 2008) cover article is on Benazir Bhutto — a refreshingly newsworthy subject for the magazine. After all, Bhutto was assassinated on December 27th, and her death has brought new concerns about the future of Pakistan and the region.
However, the cover headline asks an unsettling question: “Is Benazir Bhutto America’s best hope against al-Qaeda?”
Gosh, I hope not. Considering she died ten days ago.
The article by Gail Sheehy was written before the assassination. That’s okay. But the printed version makes no clarification whatsoever about what’s happened in the meantime: in Parade-land, Bhutto is still alive, racing towards the election. She’s our best hope!
Obviously, Parade is printed in advance. From the website: “The assassination of Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27 occurred after PARADE’s Jan. 6 issue went to press.”
But does Parade really need to be printed ten days in advance? Did the editors spend the last week and a half sitting on their hands, hoping their average reader would be so clueless to world events so as not to notice that the subject of their lead article was gunned down for the world to see? (Sadly, the editors’ gamble may be reasonable.)
The web enables print media to amend and expand their reporting, which Parade did to some degree. From the site: “After her assassination, PARADE immediately posted the entire interview online,” which is a great start, but then, “and Sheehy appeared on network and cable TV news shows to discuss her face-to-face conversations with Bhutto.”
So you put your journalist on television to talk about the interview, but then declined to frame the article in context for your publication?
I’ve worked in media enough to know that nothing is impossible. They could have fixed the cover. They could have added an introductory paragraph pointing readers to the web for more information. And failing that, they could have wrapped the issue with an explanatory note.
But they would have only done that if they were an actual news publication, rather than a crappy info-tainment tabloid pretending to be one.
My beef about their “long lead time” excuse is that the insert is included in daily newspapers across the country, which creates the expectation that it’s at least somewhat timely. Which it’s not.
And so the onus really falls on newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, which need to be proactive about how they’re going handle such errors. After all, the printed copy of Parade says “Los Angeles Times” at the top, in the newspaper’s logotype. In simple fact, the January 6th, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times says Benazir Bhutto is still alive. That’s embarrassing.
Update: I’m delighted to find I’m not the only one aggravated.
Articles
January 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
For a more critical look at the life and legacy of Ms. Bhutto, see this commentary at the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04dalrymple.html
January 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
At the very least the magazine (that’s a very loose term) could have and should have been pulled from the weekend distribution. That certainly could have been done without much effort on the part of the publishers of Parade.
Why the times pulled West magazine as a weekly publication and includes Parade in its stead is a mystery. West has some depth to it and Parade is slim version of some tabloid, with barely enough filler to qualify as a magazine.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Jake - you’re dead right. Pulling and pulping it was the obvious solution. The reason someone might have been reluctant to pull it: they didn’t want to refund the advertising dollars they’d banked on that edition. Someone made a bad decision that the ad dollars were worth the embarrassment of this cover. They’re not.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I saw that today and thought it was really odd they didn’t pull it. Kind of sick.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I reread that article twice thinking I must be missing something. Then I thought Parade had suddenly gone comic/ironic ala ‘The Onion’.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Obviously the article’s importance lies in Ms. Bhutto’s predictive clarity and serves as a meaningful coda to her life. Good call by the Parade editors - what precisely is the problem here?
January 7th, 2008 at 2:22 am
RIP: news on paper
January 7th, 2008 at 8:14 am
6 Jen:
Please read John’s post before commenting. I think it explains rather clearly “what precisely” the problem is. Do you work for Parade or something? Meaningful coda? I must say that I had to laugh. I doubt Ms. Bhutto would be honored by an irresponsible, posthumous mention in a tabloid.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The problem, Jen, is that the brain dead dorks who write that good-only-for-asswipe rag is precisely what John pointed out: America’s best hope for Terrorism died ten days ago. Should we maybe….just maybe change the headline, Mr. JJ Jameson? From a journalism (and I use the term loosely with them) standpoint it seems unprofessional at best and irreverent at worst.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
John,
I finished reading The Nines last night. Even though it was late, I just couldn’t put it down. Thanks for posting it! I thought it was amusing that you put your distaste for Parade in the script. lol…
Quick question, and I think this may be a stupid one, but in your script you use the words “pre-lab” a few times. I also read them in Tamara Jenkins’ The Savages script. I’m assuming it has something to do with production? What does it mean? Thanks.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Who cares? She was just another corrupt politician who was trying to get back in power to dip her greedy fingers into the till again.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Bhutto is actually alive and kicking in Uruguay. She lives in a beachfront condo with Tupac Shakur and Hitler. Get with the program, people. Parade Magazine has the inside scoop.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
While I think we can all agree Parade is a silly magazine, I don’t see why you obsess about it so much. (Because everybody considers it a silly magazine already — I’ve considered it a silly magazine since I was old enough to read the cover — over 30 years now.) It is sort of like complaining that TV Guide isn’t a good source for hard news. While true, so what? It’s fluff, and everyone knows it is fluff. Who exactly needs to see the light here?
January 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The credibility of the LA TIMES Was undeniable around 10 years ago.
Since then, the credibility has been dying out. With this publication, it is a strong dagger to their sides.
I wouldn’t know if it was because the editors were lazy or DIDNT NOTICE -_- but this is still inexcusable.
There was no apology or corrections in the Monday paper either.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The Parade.com website censors comments by blotting out the first parts of ****stan and ****stani.
Stupidest Censoring Software Ever.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bono seeks to treat eradicate HIV/AIDS in Africa…Clooney fights genocide in Darfur…and August campaigns to discredit the journalistic institution of Parade Magazine.
Hard to tell which mission is the most humane :-)
January 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Typical spooky, bumbling nonsense from Parade. I am also weirdly obsessed with Parade’s failings and couldn’t tell you why to save my life. It’s the first part of the paper I must read every Sunday.
With all due gravity to the situation, I suppose next issue there will be a blinkingly innocent Brady question:
Q: “I admire Benazir Bhutto’s quest for peace in her country Pakistan. She is so attractive for an older woman. When is her birthday? - Myrtle Thompson, MN”
A: “The striking brunette is a Gemini, but won’t be celebrating this year due to a tragic assassin’s bullet.”
On another note, did no one see last week’s picture of Katie Holmes smiling demonically over Queen Latifah’s shoulder? THAT was disturbing.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
From the LA Times Readers Representative website:
Parade’s interview with Benazir Bhutto
“Is Benazir Bhutto America’s best hope against al-Qaeda?” read the headline on the cover of Parade magazine, an insert that goes out weekly with the Sunday L.A. Times. The cover photograph of Bhutto included the words, “I Am What The Terrorists Most Fear,” a quotation that came from the interview by Gail Sheehy that was published Jan. 6.
A note on Page A2 written by the editors told readers what was behind the publication of a magazine piece that clearly had been written weeks before: “Today’s copy of Parade magazine includes an interview with Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated Dec. 27. The Times distributes but does not publish Parade and today’s edition was printed before she was killed.”
Not everyone saw the note, and even the readers who did weren’t happy about the decision to distribute Parade in light of the leader’s death. Dan Harrison of Los Angeles was one of dozens who had called and written by midday Sunday: “My wife and I were both severely disappointed in the L.A. Times’ decision to include today’s Parade magazine with Benazir Bhutto on the cover, with the obvious assumption that she was still alive. We understand that the L.A. Times doesn’t publish Parade and that it was published before her assassination, but The Times does ASSEMBLE the newspaper and there is no way that it should have been included. We read the note on Page A2, but I wonder how many readers didn’t see it and didn’t know what had happened. It is a journalistic black eye. The only reason we can assume that the L.A. Times would assemble papers that included such a thoughtless article: money.”
Reader Maureen Cobbett of Temple City hadn’t seen that Page A2 note: “To allow this issue to be distributed as if Ms. Bhutto was still alive is disrespectful of her memory, insensitive to Ms. Bhutto’s family, friends and loyal followers, and irresponsible journalism. Would an interview with a slain U.S. politician have been treated in this way? I think not. Shame on Parade magazine and the L.A. Times!”
By Monday, more than 100 readers had complained. In response, L.A. Times publisher David Hiller said that The Times was legally bound to distribute Parade: “We have heard from a good many readers who objected to Sunday’s Parade magazine cover story and interview with Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated December 27. Please be aware that The Times distributes Parade, but is not the publisher. That issue was printed before she was killed and Parade magazine management made the determination to release the approximately 32 million copies they had printed, believing that there would be significant reader interest in one of the slain leader’s last interviews. I am sorry if we gave offense to any of our readers, but we are contractually obligated to distribute Parade and we honored our legal commitment to do so.”
Once editors knew of the plans to include the magazine in the Sunday paper, said Editor Jim O’Shea, they decided to place that “note to readers” on Page A2.
The Parade publisher explained his thinking in an Associated Press story, saying in part that the magazine had been printed and distribution to 400 papers had begun a week before the assassination.
January 07, 2008
January 7th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
You guys know that Parade is not an L.A. magazine, but a national one, right? It is distributed in Sunday papers all over the country. The editors of the L.A. Times have nothing to do with it.
It has been fluff as long as I can remember, and probably has been since its inception (in 1941, according to its website). Why on earth would a serious person ever even look at Parade, except for a few laughs? Why not just say it is not your cup of tea and never think about it again? Don’t read it, don’t think about it — works for me. It is not like you need to read it to be “in the know”. Has anyone (with the possible exception of our host) ever brought up Parade magazine around the water cooler or at a party? Really, you can just skip it and it won’t make a bit of difference in your life except to make you a wee bit happier. If you like, you can also skip Reader’s Digest, the National Enquirer, and all the other content-less fluff magazines you can think of. I promise you won’t miss anything…
January 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I thought the fact that they didn’t print something– anything– indicating that Bhutto had been killed indicates how little some publications think of their audience vs the bottom line. It reminds me of Elf’s dad who sent the children’s book to press with 2 pages missing because he cared more about money and didn’t think enough of his readers (kids) to actually print something that made sense. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one upset.
Even a catalog is able to print “Sold Out” over something no longer in stock before they send out the entire catalog. Seems like Parade could afford to print “Assassinated.”
January 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Deadtrees (#18): thanks for posting that.
The LA Times’ excuse is ridiculous. I’m sure they have a contract to distribute Parade. But if they deem an issue offensive enough they could pull it and risk the very unlikely outcome of Parade taking it to court. Does anyone really think they would risk that further embarrassment? As that reader stated - the magazine would have been pulled had it been a US politician who was assassinated, contractual obligations or not.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
It truly was a low point in american journalism. If they do not have a very large mea culpa in next week’s crappy edition — and, you are right, the Times and every other major paper that inserts it should have had the forethought to publish some sort of statement on the day of its release or the very next day — then any paper that continues to insert it will lose even more credence. Crikey!
January 9th, 2008 at 12:27 am
The remarks here have been enlightening as to the LA Times’ decision to include the Bhutto edition of Parade. However, I still found the anachronistic Parade cover article disturbing. Even if the LA Times is contractually obligated to include Parade, its explanation should have been printed on the Times’ front page, or as an extra cover or even printed note on the magazine. I, like many other readers, missed the A2 explanation. Certainly, these alternatives would have been expensive, but a newspaper of the LA Times’ status shouldn’t risk its reputation this way. Printing articles outdated by 10 days in a nationally recognized daily newspaper with a minor “Page A2″ explanation is ridiculous. I’m also amazed that in a city as internationally diverse as Los Angeles the Times didn’t move to avert reactions that range from disquieted to insulted.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:25 am
“The editors of the L.A. Times have nothing to do with it.”
The editors of the LA times don’t create Parade, but they allow Parade to be distributed not just with their paper, but with the name of their paper printed at the top of the Parade cover.
The editors should have had the balls to refuse to include that issue. Period.
And if they are contractually obligated to include anything Parade ever prints, they need to get out of that contract ASAP. Best case would be if many of these big papers just dump Parade completely, but at the very least they need to only distribute it on the condition that they get veto power over issues that make the rest of the paper look bad.
All Parade (or any of the host papers) needed to do was to print an extra cover sheet (or preferably a replacement one) with a note explaining, this was printed before the assasination and we feel it is an interview people should read, along with some additional context and background.
The only thing stopping them from doing that was the expense. They were cheapskates and chose shipping outdated “news” over eating the cost and doing the right thing.
It doesn’t surprise me that Parade would make that choice, but it’s pretty pathetic that so many papers didn’t take a stand. It DOES reflect on their journalistic integrity and demonstrates that they value money over content.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
My God, I can’t believe that there are other people out there who despise Parade the way that I do! It is beyond dreadful!!! I think I started my truly passionate hate while reading the “Hollywood Insider” section where they referred to Angelina Jolie’s “real child” (aka the biological one). But I hated it long before that. Time and again I opened it because it was colorful and always seemed like a magazine. But it’s not a magazine, it’s possibly the worst, most ignorant piece of rubbish to receive national syndication, EVER. I literally pull it out of the paper on Sundays and cram it into the trash bin, trying to avoid even looking at it because it pisses me off that it’s even in there. So weird, right??? At least I’m not alone!!!
January 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I wonder if there are any papers that did pull it or did make a more prominent note. I wish I knew a writer who had access to Lexis Nexis…
A simple google search notes that over 400 newspapers do carry Parade and not unbelievably, this npr story — http://tinyurl.com/2ur4w4 –notes that this is not the first time this has happened with Parade.
For Shame.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Please do an article on the “In Step With…” articles and the oh-so revealing “Brady’s Bits”.