Parade's cover story questioned

Pete & Steve are missing the point. In the information age, where I can respond to their posts moments after they entered the converation, more journalistict responsibility Parade is assumed. In an age where putting a paper to bed is done with a keystroke, leaving an article with such relevance without update is a BIG Faux Pax. They blew a chance to say, we wrote a very prescient article, not a stale one.

The Tribune should have pulled the rag. I was outraged Sunday morning when I saw the cover of Parade. I never read the stupid magazine, but Bhutto’s photo and the enormous headline was impossible to ignore. At the very least, the Tribune should have included a prominent, full page explanation and tribute to the deceased. I bet the Tribune’s subscriptions drop over this. I cancelled my subscription that morning!

How many of you who are posting actually read Parade?

The Trib missed a chance to pull the insert. It could have been replaced with more of the bitter sportsters' attempts to expose the vast pro-athlete, anti-media conspiracy that weighs on the world. I bet Tank Johnson can somehow be blamed for this whole thing.

When I received the magazine, I was surprised by the cover. After reading the article I was glad that it was left in the sunday paper. Would we have seen such a balanced look at Bhutto by something written after her death? Probably not.

"Parade's publisher and president, Randy Siegel, said it would have cost several millions of dollars to update the article, even to put a Post-It type note on the magazine. He also said creating a delay in sending out Parade may have resulted in newspapers not receiving copies in time to insert the magazines into their Sunday editions."

--Vince said it best: newspapers are electronically produced now, so this excuse is c.r.a.p.. Clearly a conscious decision was made to offend readers, and the Tribune went right along with it.

And they wonder why newspaper readership is declining nationally.

My guess is that most subscribers use the UNREAD magazine to start their weekly pile of paper recycling.

Journalistic integrity was left at the curb in this case because of financial considerations. I work for a national legal magazine, and we recently had a cover story with a headline that we realized, at the last minute, was open to misinterpretation. We made the decision to reprint the cover and incurred significant costs that we could scarce afford. The point is, our readers know that we will do everything possible to earn and keep their trust. The Tribune's decision to stick with the outdated Parade article cannot be defended in any way. I no longer trust the judgment of Tribune editors. When money becomes the overriding factor in editorial decisions, then all credibility has been lost. This is a perfect example of why the print news medium is dying. If those who make the decisions base them on their bottom lines, those bottom lines will do nothing but continue to shrink. Combine that with the Tribune's recent 50 percent increase in cost per copy, and you've got a business that appears to have a death wish.

I'm amazed at the number of people who think that Parade is written and printed on a timely basis like the Tribune. Parade is not a daily publication and its articles are written and printed weeks in advance.
However, because of the events surrounding her death greater more thought about distributing this should have occurred.
The article itself was interesting but one wonders what the overall impact there will be without her presence.

Parade still accepts tobacco company blood money and is tobacco friendly (even in their "Doctor" segments), so the Bhutto cover shouldn't have surprised anyone.

We are forever bombarded by "free market" ideals. Here is a situation where those principles came into play. They decided it would cost too much money to do the right thing, just like Ford did with the Pinto gas tanks. Money talks louder than honor. These are the same ideals that are driving the sale of the Cubs and other assets of the Tribune Company. Sam? Are you listening? Maybe you should take another look at the philosophy that drove you to buy the Tribune.

There's nothing disrespectful about printing some of Bhutto's final words. In fact, censoring would be a greater disrespect.

What is the real issue is that Parade is always old news.

Don't like it? Don't read it. Get over it.

The article was disrespectful to a woman who could have made changes for the better.

Newspaper Relevancy Vs. Web. Not only is the Web's content, writing, and timeliness surpassing print media - but now it's clear that the editorial decision making process has lost it's old school philosophy. When the Tribune and it's compatriots bemoan their depressed industry - they can only blame themselves.

I noticed it immediately and thought it made the Parade look like an amateur publication. I didn't have a problem with them running the story, but there should have been some recognition or update added that the story was written prior to her death. It was lazy publishing.

It is obvious the article was not pulled because of the potential revenue lose to both the Tribune and Parade. They took a chance publishing a tasteless dated article and underestimated the backlash. Point is who will read Parade now?

The Trib should have pulled the issue of Parade. I was disgusted to see it in the paper. I assumed the choice to include it was strictly economical (it comes enclsoed with all the sales fliers); another sign that money sways journalism.

deciding factor money

My first reaction to seeing the Parade cover was "How on earth could the Tribune publish this?" Now that I read about the Mr. Smith's decision to allow Parade to make the call, I feel feel let down - where was simple common sense?

I didn't see the explanation on page 2, and it was difficult to read knowing she had been killed. But, the article was interesting, especially the hint that the Bhutto family might have taken almost a billion dollars for themselves from the country they supposedly love.