I have generally believed for a while that the news judgment of today’s editors and producers is pretty abysmal. The media obsession with the JonBenet Ramsey case, even from normally respectable publications, dramatically proves the point.

Josh Marshall passes on an observation from a reader that illustrates that obsession perfectly:

Number of reporters contributing to Friday’s front page New York Times story on the JonBenet Ramsey case: 13

Number of reporters contributing to Friday’s front page New York Times story on the federal court ruling that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional: 2

(HT: James Joyner)

There is no definition under which this story qualifies as news. Covering it with the kind of resources normally dedicated to a major war or presidential campaign is a ridiculous mis-allocation of increasingly scarce reporting resources, and that makes it a huge disservice to readers and viewers.

Cam says: Marshall, it’s clear that one story here has worldwide implications on matters affecting each and every one of us, and it’s not some silly little story about wiretapping. C’mon now. A confession in a brutal murder ten years ago take precedence. Besides, you saw those creepy child beauty pageant photos. How could you not be obsessed with the case?

This is a prime example of the media catering to what it thinks its audience wants. It’s interesting to me that the NYTimes did this, but I can’t say I’m surprised. But while we’re on the subject of news judgement, what do you think of the WaPo’s attempt to keep the George Allen story alive for a week? How many front page stories on this have their been since the Senator aplogized?

Note to the WaPo: it’s getting pretty shameless now, fellas.

Marshall: Funny you mention the George Allen story. There’s another story today. Front page, above the fold of the Metro section. Yet another piece attacking the Senator. Okay, guys. We all know you hate George Allen. Time to let it go.

But your point is right on — I call it the USA Today effect. Editors and producers have given up making decisions about what news is significant. Instead, they rely on focus groups and market research to tell them what stories their readers and viewers want. But on some level, we rely on the media to know what’s going on around the world and help identify what’s important. To be sure, the Internet has made it easier for us to be our own editors, but not all the way. The traditional media still has the resources spread around the world to inform us about things we wouldn’t discover on our own. But they’re not interested. They just want to do one more story on JonBennet.

Jim: I mostly concur with the takes above. The guy’s confession, and the question of whether he’s the killer or just some nut trying to take credit for the heinous deed, is a story. It’s intriguing, a mystery, and the public is a sucker for gruesome true crime tales.

I don’t begrudge the media paying some attention to the mind candy - whether it’s the monthly “trials of the century” - Scott Peterson, Andrea Yates, Robert Blake, etc., or the latest exploits of Brangelina, Bennifer, the slow-motion car crash that is Lindsey Lohan’s life, etc.

I do begrudge them when this stuff gets in the way of the important stuff. (And as we all know, in the 1990s, news organizations decided their readers didn’t care about news internationally, and drastically cut their foreign bureaus and overseas coverage. “I mean, it’s not like a bunch of guys overseas are going to blow up the World Trade Center or something.”) News agencies don’t have unlimited news holes. A half-hour newscast can only do so many stories; a newspaper or magazine only has so many pages. I do find it moderately rediculous that to the cable news networks, the biggest story to come out of Turkey in the past year and a half was the guy who fell off the cruise ship — not AKP and the fight between secularists and Islamists, the PKK and Turkey’s threatened invasion of Iraq (I saw NO coverage of that!), bird flu, Valley of the Wolves Iraq, the Danish cartoons…

I find the Washington Post to be generally one of the most consistent and solid newspapers in the country, must reading for everyone in the political world, but I agree with the assessment that they’ve let their true views show with their all-Macaca-all-the-time coverage of the Virginia Senate race. Having said that, I think that the Post is big enough that it will see few if any consequences for slanted, disproportionate, or just all-out bad coverage of any particular race. The Times and the Examiner are fine papers, but they’re a long ways from replacing the Post.

(Full disclosure: In the past year, I’ve appeared in all three Washington papers, and would like to stay on good terms with all of them.)