I laughed my ass off at that cover.

Tens of thousands dead, most because they live in some of the crappiest conditions on the planet, and the boys at the Daily News led with a supermodel's plight.

I think the supermodel's plight is relevant to the story. She puts a well-known (for those who read or like Sports Illustrated) face on the tragic events that involve people from everywhere.

Those people do live in a crappy part of the world, but some of their governments had warning and ignored it. So is poverty to blame or stupidity (on the government's part).

Well hey, Jet Li also survived the tsunami, and I don't see HIM getting any covers. Sometimes, the sex sells mantra is played a bit too heavily by some papers.

I didn't see the Jet Li story until today. I heard about the model yesterday, perhaps their choice of the super model was dependant on events?

I don't think the Daily News was thinking about turning folks on with their story.

Somehow I don't think that people (even New Yorkers!) need a swimsuit model to put a human face on the event. Pictures of grieving mothers and stacked bodies do a pretty good job of that.

Nobody's saying it's irrelevant. We all find local angles to these events. But put it inside, for God's sake. Don't lead your paper with it. That just makes you look silly.

I think you're missing my point, djizzle. Rather than cover the harsh reality of the situation, which speaks for itself, they used a cutesy photo of the supermodel with her boyfriend, which totally downplays the seriousness of it.

I look at this photo and see nothing of the scale or magnitude. With another headline and a couple of refers, I would almost be foold into thinking I was reading a gossipy issue of People. I'm suggesting that making it so palatable to readers is really doing them a disservice.

Look at 9/11 -- if a paper put a photo like this out there the day after, they'd probably get MANY reader complaints. There are MANY more powerful photographic statements out there which cover the breadth of the situation much more clearly.

I agree with you Ernie, the layout and photo selection was stupid, but I'm not a fan of papers like the Daily News. I would think that, in NYC, with the Post and the Times to deal with that the Daily News would hunt for a newspeg with which they could attract readers.

Every paper had stacks of dead bodies and weeping mothers. Only the DN had a supermodel and her boyfriend!

Love it, hate it...they were different. *At least thats my humble opinion.*

As if anyone needed another reason to ingnore this rag. Good grief.

This is the shittest cover I have ever seen in my long miserable life! Looks like those people are being happy about not hearing the kids anymore.

It should, however, be noted that she suffered serious internal injuries (bones broken so badly that slivers pierced organs) and spent hours hanging on for dear life. Doesn't make putting a pre-tsunami photo of her on the front page any less tacky, but her story is indeed part of the news.