So long as the treatment of the candidates in superficial and tells us virtually nothing about who they are and what they actually stand for, does it even matter which page they appear on? Guiliani is running on his supposed "leadership" role on 9/11. While he has garned praise for his conduct by the press, the press has never explored why he supressed the NYC firefighter's oral histories and eyewitness testimonies to explosions in the sub-basements, mid-levels, and uppermost floors of the World Trade Center towers prior to their collapsing. He has never, to my knowledge, explained why the structural steel was so rapidly removed from the scene, shipped to Asian scraps markets, and not forensically examined as evidence in a criminal investigation. So he appears in Portland to talk tough, and promote his world view as a presidential candidate. Did the embarrassing incident of endorsing Bernard Kerik come up in questioning in front of the State Police? Mr. Kerik, to remind you, has embarrassing mob connections those state police officers might have been interested in querying Rudy about.

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps one of the most honest candidates, yet is relegated to the inside. Why, because the press, not just in Portland, has little interest in anything other than the superficial. Kucinich hasn't a chance, so why waste column space on page one. The emperor can have no clothing whatsoever...the press will dutifully see and report otherwise. Especially in an election cycle.

Wrong. While Kucinich is a valid and intereting candidate, it is what he does that is news, not what he stands for. What he stands for is easily found on his web site accessible to everyone for public viewing.

As for your attempts to perpetuate bizarre conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, shame on you. Your adherence to disproved urban legends that have no factual basis whatsoever demonstrates a profound absence of the ability to confront reality and dishonors the people who died that day. Get a life and don't clog up blogs with that tired and disproved garbage.
As clearly highlighted in reputable investigations (including PBS's NOVA), the explosions in the building were caused by secondary explosions of highly flammable jet fuel vapor following the sudden arrival of thousands and thousands of pounds of the stuff when terrorists used large commercial airliners as missiles to take out the building. As for the steel, all of it was sampled and the results are publicly available for those interested in seeing the effects of exploding and buring jet fuel on steel.

Let’s assume that the city editor’s numerous questions about how he should play stories on Maine visits by presidential aspirants are not rhetorical.

He asks whether stories about all presidential candidates should appear on page A1, or B1, or inside the local section, or whether one could be on A1, and another on an inside page, or whether apparent top-tier aspirants should get the same B1 play as a less likely nominee, or whether there should be a difference in story position for aspirants in Maine to campaign versus those in Maine to attend private fund-raisers.

Here’s the simple answer. First, these are all the wrong questions. They are all focused on what the presidential aspirants deserve from the news media. That’s the wrong focus. They don’t deserve anything from the news media; and they certainly don’t deserve to expect equal treatment. Put another way, the newspaper does not exist to serve the people who generate news. The newspaper exists to serve the people who read the newspaper and expect to find news stories which reflect straightforward news judgment.

Was a particular presidential aspirant newsworthy enough to merit Page A1 coverage? If so, tentatively put him or her on the budget. And let that story compete with all the other Page A1 prospects for front-page space. If a top-ranked aspirant comes to Maine but says little that is newsworthy, the story placement and length, and headline size, should reflect that judgment. If a lower-tier aspirant says something obviously newsworthy, or attracts an unexpectedly large crowd, perhaps he or she should have Page 1A space — not because of who he or she is, but because the newspaper’s readers expect major news out front.

There’s another key variable, of course: the other stories that any story about a visiting presidential aspirant must compete with for Page A1 space. On a slow news day, the standard is low; on a fast new news day, it is higher. It has little to do with the stature of the presidential aspirant, and everything to do with what is the most newsworthy on any given day. As the editor making these decisions, Andrew Russell ought not to abdicate this responsibility to the false dictates of a presidential aspirant’s presence or name recognition or anything else that impairs his news judgment.

—John Lovell