response to new york times irrelevant article

   The New York Times posted an article this week that did not reach the standards of the elements and yardsticks of journalism. The article was about how a mayor of a small town in Texas killed a large alligator in revenge because she believes that the alligator ate her miniature horse. Now sure this story brought up some controversial opinions regarding how wrong it was but who is this really affecting. It may be important to citizens ling there, but is it affecting anyone outside of this small town? Is it something that that news organization really thinks needs to be heard or are they just trying to have the most content and be the first to write a headline about it compared to their competition? 
   The article isn't something that is going to affect a lot of people and it is does not need to be posted on any news site other than a local one. This article is not newsworthy, which is one of the 7 yardsticks of journalism and it's not being very loyal either(one of the 10 elements). As a journalist they should be publishing only the newsworthy articles because that is most likely what the majority of their viewers are looking for. These non-newsworthy articles are constantly being published and it gets annoying having to scroll through all of them just to see what is happening that will actually affect you. 
   New York times, along with other major news medias need to focus more of their attention on trying to follow the yardsticks and elements and trying to publish news worthy articles.