Based upon the comments on the Freeman website, it seems people were not happy with the front page story on this past Sunday's edition. The Mother's Day edition had a front page story about Jeremy Blaber and his life.
The comments suggest a feeling that this story was not appropriate. I think the story was fine. Since Blaber has generated tremendous controversy with the release of his surreptitious recording, many readers might be asking, "Who is this guy anyway?"
Though the story is fair and has a purpose, I question placing it on the front page. Buried in the second section was one of the biggest potential stories of the year. The IRS admitted to the world that they targeted conservative groups and anti-Obama groups for auditing during the last presidential campaign. This type of stuff has been rumored for years from prior Democrat and Republican administrations, but to get an admission from the IRS is astounding and staggering. THAT IS A HUGE STORY!!
I think that should have been front page news, not the Blaber article, even though I am sure there were more hits on the Blaber story via the Internet. Am I off base? I admit I am not a journalist. I am an attorney, a blogger, and soon to be a published author (a story soon to be posted). Am I missing something? I agree the story on Blaber made some sense as a background piece to explain the prior headlines. Some speculate that the intent was to make Blaber a more compelling victim to strengthen the prior Gallo stories, but I will give the Freeman the benefit of the doubt on that one.
I welcome comments. Am I wrong? Do the number of "hits" justify the decision? Or was perhaps the placement of the story responsible for the number of hits? (Every single comment was anti-Freeman.) Should the IRS story have been on the front page?
What say all of you?