Completely mystified as to why this feature continues to take up an entire page in the newspaper, and any space at all online.
.
Setting aside (surely to your horror) the Merc's wild and free definition of "news," let's measure this feature against a customary definition of what is worth publishing:
.
1) Is it timely?
No. Many of these items are 7 or more days old by the time most readers would encounter them.
2) It it local?
Not by a stretch. (No other coverage of Quirkyville USA that could fill this space? Really?)
3) Is it unique?
No. Anyone who cares about 10-day-old celeb news read it 10 days ago on People.com, Perez Hilton or wherever.
4) But, wait, isn't the snark with which we frame this 10-day-old news unique?
Hmmm ... you may have gotten us on that one, so let us continue on to:
5) Is it relevant, to anyone?
No. Are readers of the Merc 10-year-old fans of T Swift? If the answer is no, then, NO.
Please, for the love of God, consider some new purpose for this previous staff talent, newsprint and pixels.
.
Setting aside (surely to your horror) the Merc's wild and free definition of "news," let's measure this feature against a customary definition of what is worth publishing:
.
1) Is it timely?
No. Many of these items are 7 or more days old by the time most readers would encounter them.
2) It it local?
Not by a stretch. (No other coverage of Quirkyville USA that could fill this space? Really?)
3) Is it unique?
No. Anyone who cares about 10-day-old celeb news read it 10 days ago on People.com, Perez Hilton or wherever.
4) But, wait, isn't the snark with which we frame this 10-day-old news unique?
Hmmm ... you may have gotten us on that one, so let us continue on to:
5) Is it relevant, to anyone?
No. Are readers of the Merc 10-year-old fans of T Swift? If the answer is no, then, NO.
Please, for the love of God, consider some new purpose for this previous staff talent, newsprint and pixels.