Kathy Dettwyler wrote:

<Someone wrote (about newspapers being critical of breastfeeding):

<>The vast majority of U.S. journalists also fall to the left of center
politically, and that crowd can be  >hostile to the idea that baby needs
mom -- believing instead that baby needs a happy,0
making-lots-of-money->during-long-separations mom.
<
<YOUCH!!!  I suspect few in this field are more "left of center
politically"
than me -- but I support/espouse/and practice attachment parenting and
'extended' breastfeeding.  It is more radically LEFT to fight for women
being able to work and have their child with them or at least be able to
pump.  ... (snip a lesson on how employment choices don't mandate a
certain infant feeding choice).>

As the “someone” who simply tried to be helpful with an insider’s view
into the culture of U.S. newspapers, I agree 100 percent with everything
you wrote above, Kathy. But yours and my version of “left” is not the
standard among the journalists I’ve worked with. That was my point. I
can see how my questionable choice of the word has gotten people’s hair
up to the extent that they’re not paying attention to how what I wrote
is potentially useful. For that, I’m sorry. 

With breastfeeding and news coverage, there is no higher plot. I
guarantee you no one says, "Look, this story is about this baby who died
because of breastfeeding. Our studies show that we sell more papers when
we bash breastfeeding. Let's play it on A1." It's more like, "Wow, this
baby almost died because of breastfeeding. I'm lucky I started off with
formula. I'm going to pitch this for A1." Or, "Everybody's always
talking about how great breastfeeding is, this baby DIED because of it
-- let's put the story on 1." No, it's not rigorous thought, but it's
the reality of what goes on in newsrooms.

<Anyone who thinks that the newspaper doesn't pay attention to what
sells in
terms of choosing articles and slanting them one way or another is
seriously naive.  The writer of a particular article may have no axe to
grind or may not care if the papers sell or not, but the editors and
managers certainly do!!!!>

I was a newspaper manager. Not at the very top echelon, but I saw how
editorial and business decisions are made. I had a staff and a budget
and sat through my share of management meetings. Yes, newspaper managers
at the kind of papers I've worked for, which span both coasts and range
in circulation from 12,000 to 700,000, wanted readership to grow, but
they plot strategies in remarkably general terms -- maybe that’s why
newspaper circulation is continuing its steady decline. At most places,
the decisions about what stories go in the paper are made at low levels.
The bulk of the editing, as well, is done by rather low-level employees.
There simply isn’t time and staff to run every decision by lots of
editors and managers at most U.S. daily newspapers. At places like the
N.Y. Times they might do so, but not in Austin, Riverside, Poughkeepsie
or any of the Portlands.  I’ll admit that magazines are a different
story, with much more time and pressure from advertisers involved in the
product. I was truly shocked to see how many decisions I was making so
quickly and so early into my newspaper career. I shared the apparently
common misperception that more thought and oversight went into crafting
the daily product.

I’m sorry to get further off the breastfeeding track.

Best,
Kathleen McKernan Whitfield
retired newspaper editor
freelance writer
lay breastfeeding counselor
Riverside, CA

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html