Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Associated Press sinks lower than 'Prince'

Everyone on campus likes to hate on the 'Prince' for covering non-news stories (see: Typical Tiger and our feature on the cemetery and ... our other feature on the cemetery).

But the Associated Press sank to a lower level than even we have reached in recent days, with an article about how a New Jersey Transit train missed its stop at Princeton Junction.

We feel superior.

UPDATE: The coverage continues! Today, The Times of Trenton has joined in the fray with this article examining the reasons for the missed stop.

Among the gems of fine reporting featured in this article, take special note of enlightening quotes by commuters like Brian O'Leary, who notes, "
I knew we were very close to Princeton Junction, but the train was moving awfully fast."

Coming soon: The Prince's take on the missed stop debacle. "God, it would suck to have been on that train," Susie McStudent '13 said. "Like, if I saw we were coming up on Princeton Junction and the train kept moving awfully fast. Yeah, that would suck."


Self-Admitted Stalker said...

Too bad you guys posted this exact same story on this blog, then deleted it, and posted this "superior" story instead.

Scarlet Knight said...

This is actually a big story for a small town. 500 people were delayed on the train, and other passengers faced delays through ripple effects. It illustrates persistent problems with NJ transit, especially in light of budget cuts.

Just because the Prince likes to focus these days on soft features instead of hard news (or the version of hard news we have in Princeton, NJ) doesn't mean that other news sources can't cover hard news either.

Anonymous said...

Um, that AP story is more interesting than most of the non-news you cover.

Anonymous said...

Scarlet Knight: What are three examples of hard news that you think the Prince isn't covering?

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the Prince's non-news stories are not good. All papers carry non news stories, read the sunday ny times. It's just that the way you write them is not compelling and their is no investigative journalism, only surface nonsense