Craig, a lot of reporters and editors view online people more as online subs or tech people than real journalists. Basically, they want people to clean up their stories, add some bold tags here or there, plug in some photos and do some Web “magic.” But that’s all really basic stuff that any non-technical person could learn.

Sometimes I have to remind people that just because I know a lot of Web technology doesn’t mean I don’t have a journalism degree, because I have one — an honors degree. In reality, my skill set should be more of the norm, not the other way around.

Mindy, I’m not sure what exactly happened here. It could be a case of a photographer learning to a do a photo gallery for the first time, and the Times was willing to accept a sub-par showing for the first time. I’ve heard the “it’s his or her first time, give them a break” excuse too much. Of course, readers don’t care if it is your first time. They want quality, not excuses.

Or it could be a case of quotas. Maybe someone was told they had to make a gallery, regardless if the content was there or not.

It’s also possible that the NY Times Magazine is doing a gallery for every candidate and this is all they got for Huckabee. In that case, it’s a bit more understandable. I could see how they would feel like they need to do the same for every candidate to be fair.

Or maybe, as you suggested, they felt the sudden urge to ramp up their Huckabee coverage because his popularity is exploding.

What I am certain of is that no one made this gallery because they legitimately thought it was a good idea or that it made good journalism. Something else (hopefully) is going on here.

“The Web site is not your attic.”

But thats how its commonly viewed, the place for substandard journalism.