RENSSELAER, N.Y.--At the Friar Tuck newsstand, print--weirdly--is still alive and well. You'd think it was 1995 based on the startling variety of newspapers filling the racks at this Albany-area Amtrak station where I found myself this week.
In this historic moment in American history, the array--The Berkshire Eagle, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, The Albany Times-Union and more--provide a window into the world of how editors are presenting big news to a divided nation.
And in a culture where many citizens absorb their news on the run, headlines matter, whether seen on a depot newsstand, a TV screen or an iPhone news alert.
On Wednesday, The New York Times and The Washington Post presented the House's articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump as history for the ages, trumpeting the news in big type at the tops of their front pages.
The Wall Street Journal had a different top priority. The impeachment articles were merely a one-column story--next to the dominant treatment of the North American trade deal important to their business readers.
Despite the differences in emphasis, there seems to be general agreement in newspaper world that the presentation of articles of impeachment is a big deal.
But no such agreement could be found as Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report on the FBI's investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign. In this case, we were seriously into the familiar world of "no-agreed-upon truth."
Early in the Tuesday news cycle, Fox News offered up its designated contrarian and straight-shooter Chris Wallace, who pulled no punches as the news broke.
But by prime time the story on Fox had morphed into something quite unrecognizable from Wallace's description, echoing and building on Attorney General William Barr's stunning mischaracterization: "The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken."
Barr's statement prompted USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers to observe, aptly, on Twitter that "this is the opposite of what the report says."
Many news organizations were presenting the two somewhat conflicting findings of the IG's report: That the investigation was well-founded and that the FBI had made serious mistakes along the way.
On the Amtrak newsstand on Tuesday, USA Today's decision sent a strong message to those who might have just caught a few words as they rushed to catch the Empire Service to New York City.
Stretching across the top of the front page, the headline delivered its main takeaway: "Faults found in FBI's surveillance."
For those who stopped to read the sub-headline, there was this, in much lighter, smaller type: "But Russia probe was legally justified, inspector general says."
Some travelers may have actually bought the paper and could have read a thorough, balanced story underneath the headlines.
But I have my doubts.
As my train chugged away from the throwback print haven at Friar Tuck's newsstand, most people were glued to their phones anyway.
Editorial on 12/13/2019