Rough Waves, Tougher Beaches

When I visited the homepage of The New York Times last night, the center of the webpage was a photo of a member of the "Wolfpak," a group of "the boys" who use intimidation to gain respect among the surfers in Oahu, Hawaii, accompanied by the link to the story. The article discusses the background of the Wolfpak, mentions a few select members (world champions among them) and relates incidents that have taken place involving the Wolfpak putting its intimidation methods to use.

Although I find the story interesting and think that it makes a good feature article, I found its prominence on The New York Times' page somewhat undue in light of everything going on in the U.S. this week, like the election of our 44th president, a black American. The stories involving Barack Obama appeared to the left of the aforementioned story, in a mere side column! For that matter, is there ever a time where there is nothing else going on in the world that should take precedence over a story about some surfers in Hawaii? Why not put a story about Caroline Kennedy refusing Hilary Clinton’s vacated Senate seat, as CNN did here? I realize that the center story resets on each visit to the page, but the placement of this story was still surprising to me.

I do think this story has novelty, and I enjoyed reading it for its unique quality. It also has an element of conflict, based on the way the gang uses intimidation to bully inexperienced surfers. However, I do not think it exhibits any of the other news values. It happens far from New York, so its proximity to the place the newspaper is published, or to me as a reader, is low. Its prominence, in comparison to things such as Obama’s swearing-in having to take place a second time, is miniscule. The story is not even timely, as there is no recent element.

I think that a story like this one is better suited to a local newspaper where it would have more relevance to its readers.