While most news organizations are still trying to find out what actually did happen last week in the wake of the Marathon bombings, the Boston Herald is busily reporting what will (or won’t) happen.
Today’s front page:
The story itself . . .
Read the rest at It’s Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town.
Campaign Outsider 
You may think they are stepping ahead of things, but they are just being more up-front here in what they are doing compared to other “upscale” news sources. If you look at the NY Times on a given day, at least half of their featured stories (front page or home page) are labeled as “analysis”, telling you “what this means”, and “what will happen next” rather than actually reporting on the who, where, what etc of classic news reporting. The difference between the NYT and the Herald is just that they (the NYT and other high-brows) frame it all more elegantly, that’s all. It’s one of the many reasons I no longer bother with NYT–they are no longer a news source, instead they are a daily presenter of “analysis”, which I see as fortune-telling but without the skirt, jewerly. and turban of Madame Fifi’s clairvoyance parlor. It’s not a matter of whether you agree with their slant or not (and they sure do have one), it’s that it isn’t news reporting anymore, it’s punditry.