Dateline: April 20, written by two Washington Post reporters and assisted by two more.
The protest by hundreds of gun-rights advocates [emphasis added], billed as a national march in support of the Second Amendment, drew small but fervent groups to the Washington area. As many as 2,000 people gathered in the shadow of the Washington Monument, and about 50 at Gravelly Point and Fort Hunt parks in Virginia.
Total number of words: a little more than 500. As I recall, the story—in print—also had prominent placement on the Metro front page or maybe it was on A1, but it definitely had a large photo accompanying the story, which as any editor would tell you, draws more readers to the story. The photo was of the 50 folks at Gravelly Point. Online the story includes a video and 18 still photos.
In today’s Post, there is a story about protests against Wall Street, organized by labor, community and progressive religious groups and the NAACP, most likely to be the political opposite of the gun-lovers:
Thousands of union workers, students and unemployed New Yorkers [emphasis added] angry over high unemployment, reckless financial industry practices and billion-dollar bailouts gathered Thursday to march in the financial district in Lower Manhattan, one of a series of rallies organized by a coalition of labor and community groups.
Online, the story, which was written by only one reporter, is nearly 600 words. But in the print edition of The Post today, it was less than half that and buried on page A16. No photo and no video or photos online. Other reports said there were “several thousand” protestors. Another said there were as many as 7,500.
Would anyone care to explain to me why the different emphasis in coverage by The Post? Why does a protest that attracts 50 people draw on the resources of four reporters and earn a photo and prominent placement while another that draws 150 times that is virtually ignored?