One of the most popular parts of the Sunday paper is Parade magazine, with its light and easy-reading blend of celebrity news, quirky question and answer columns, condensed factoids on general topics and cartoons all framed around one cover story.
Week in and week out, the working formula produces short, punchy stories presented with lots of pictures. Rarely is the magazine controversial.
Except for last Sunday.
That's when the cover story touted an interview with former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, even though she had been assassinated 10 days prior.
About two dozen readers complained – some vehemently – about The Bee's decision to distribute the magazine, some saying it was journalistically dishonest, others saying it was disrespectful and still others faulting the paper for not adequately warning readers what to expect or why.
The reaction in Sacramento mirrored that of readers across the country who also were disturbed by the cover. News stories reflected the discontent at many of the 400 newspapers that, like The Bee, distribute the 32 million copies of Parade, yet have no control over its content.
I think the paper did a poor job of alerting readers to the Bhutto story, let alone explaining the reasons why it acquiesced to distributing the outdated publication. More on that in a moment. First some background.
Bhutto was interviewed in late November by author Gail Sheehy in the context of Bhutto returning to her volatile country to run for election as prime minister.
"I am what terrorists most fear, a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan. Now they are trying to kill me," she said, and part of her quote formed the main headline on Parade's cover.
By Dec. 21, Parade went to the printers. On Dec. 27, Bhutto was killed at a campaign rally. By then, the magazine already was on its way to newspapers.
The day of the assassination, Parade updated its Web site story and sent e-mails to editors, marketing departments and business-side executives, including those at The Bee, alerting them to the situation, said David Barber, senior vice president and director of newspaper relations for Parade.
There were, however, a couple of problems: It was Christmas week and many key people were off; in addition, e-mails were sent to two executives who no longer work at The Bee.
The Parade e-mail was followed by another Jan. 2 to Bee executives, including publisher Janis Heaphy and editor Melanie Sill, and the marketing department. The e-mail was also placed in an overnight letter to Heaphy that same day, Barber said. Heaphy, who returned from vacation Jan. 2, said she didn't receive the letter.
The Jan. 2 e-mail was from Parade's editor Janice Kaplan, who explained in part, "I hope you will consider running a note to your readers this weekend explaining the context of this story. The interview is even more relevant and important now."
Here things get a bit confusing about who knew what and when at The Bee, and it serves no purpose to belabor the point except to say that it wasn't until Friday afternoon, Jan. 4, that senior editors realized the situation about the pre-printed Bhutto story set for Jan. 6 distribution.
Sill and managing editor Joyce Terhaar talked about their options. One was to withhold distribution. The other was to run a front-page note alerting readers. They choose the latter.
In part, the thinking was that readers look at Parade for more than just the cover story and that more readers might be angered by not seeing the story, which became well-publicized in the wake of Bhutto's assassination.
But in my opinion, the paper's one-paragraph bottom-of-the-page teaser to the Bhutto story was far from sufficient. Many readers missed it, and some who did see it said it was inadequate because what they wanted was an explanation about why The Bee was distributing old news.
I agree with those sentiments and think a more detailed, explanatory notice should have been published and placed much higher on the page.
So did these readers:
"Doesn't anyone check the content of Parade?" e-mailed Jeff Aran of Sacramento. "I can't believe they published the cover story on Bhutto in this fashion after her death – and didn't even acknowledge it! Someone screwed up!! I know The Bee doesn't put it together, but someone should have checked. Terribly embarrassing!"
"I have a simple question," asked Leo Fassler of Elk Grove. "Why did you enclose a Parade section … with an outdated article about Benazir Bhutto? … I have been a faithful subscriber to The Bee for some time but I can understand how publishing such an outdated article makes people wonder if they should stop subscribing to hard copy papers. Maybe you can explain why that part of the Parade section was not reviewed prior to publication."
Kenneth Smith of Roseville wrote: "How sad I am for you that you published (the) article in the Parade section about Bhutto. Even if you wanted to publish the article, you could have put a disclaimer about what happened to her. I am sure this was someone's nightmare come true. Mistakes do happen. I hope that one doesn't happen again."
And Kristi Garrett of Sacramento e-mailed to say "when I opened my newspaper today to see the lead story in Parade magazine, I initially assumed it dealt with the impact of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. I was therefore somewhat shocked when I realized the fated story was delivered to my door despite its unfortunate timing.
"Make no mistake, I am no politico and have no opinion one way or the other about the merits of Mrs. Bhutto's policies … Still, I would have liked to see a wrapper, blow-in or some other type of acknowledgment from editors about the timing of the issue … I felt including the magazine as if nothing had happened was in poor taste."
Well said.
The Public Editor deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee's content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Public Editor by mail at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852; or by calling him directly at (916) 321-1250.
