Woe be anyone who gets their dose of world news from Parade magazine, the syndicated rag which runs in many of the nation’s leading newspapers, because they might read the interview with Benazir Bhutto without any inkling that she’d been, you know, assassinated. Rather than pull the issue or reprint it, the mag ran with the posthumous interview, and while their website was updated to reflect Bhutto’s death and many of the papers in which Parade appears ran an editor’s note to explain the discrepancy, its still arguably a poor choice.
From their mission statement, Parade claims “[Each article] must also have substance, telling readers something they didn’t know before and giving them an opportunity to affect change.” Perhaps that something they didn’t know might have been to clue the reader into the fact that Bhutto was, like, dead.
So reputable papers like The Washington Post and the Houston Chronicle are left looking foolish, what with the speed with which news travels these days (hello, internet!), while Parade maybe just assumes its readership are mouth-breathers more interested in celebrity quizzes and inane advice columns. (This is not implausible. Seriously, who actually reads/enjoys Parade? Yet on it marches, weekly. )
