So most everyone likes to bash the local newspaper but while I often hear or read what's wrong with the published story or opinion, I rarely hear about what they should be doing, what they are missing, how they should serve the community better.

Granted, resources are slim for media outlets today and the "must-haves" of coverage eat up almost all allocable time. But what if they weren't so short-staffed? What if they redirected just a few resources in a different direction?

I've got no dog in this hunt but I'm a news junkie and I really do believe in the power of newspapers in particular to truly serve a community. I just can't believe those times have passed.

For instance, it seems to me that local media could make an impact with just a little more coverage of local people and families facing tough and changing times, and the agencies/groups/nonprofits that serve them, and the resources that may be available to people they might not know about. While I thought the recent story on foreclosure was a good one, it could have been so much better with a family profile to go along with it - something to make it real, relatable.

So, if you were the editor, how would you prioritize the direction of newspaper coverage? What stories are they missing that would better serve the community? What would interest you? (And I suspect/hope they will read this - and I will add, they should be asking these questions).

I know the reporter who did the foreclosure piece wanted to find someone who had their home foreclosed on but was having a problem getting anyone willing to participate (that's typically the reason why you don't read names and faces related to things like that. It's not for lack of trying). Not sure if you missed the second part of the foreclosure story that came a day or two later that did talk about a family who managed to work out the situation and avoid foreclosure.

What did you think of the follow-up in today's paper on the family who were victims of carbon monoxide? There was a pretty neat info box with it talking about how others could get energy assistance, too.

I can say for a fact that we had almost twice as many staffers when I started seven to eight years ago. It's a miracle that we're able to do what we do with what we've got. If you looked at out office and saw how many empty desks we had. Or, better yet, looked at an old staff list and saw how many specialized reporters we've lost, I think you'd be amazed. I think I've got just as many ideas on what I'd like us to do as anybody and would agree to pretty much anything you'd say that we should be doing. But that would all just be in this theoretical virtual space without on-the-ground experience and a being-there mentality. And it wouldn't take just a redirection of staff resources. It would take not covering city councils, county commissioners and school boards, which we've already cut back on in some areas because of a lack of manpower. It would also take sacrifices on behalf of some of the reporters here to cover specific items on off-hours. It's common for me to have an 11- or 12-hour work day, especially on Mondays when our paper doesn't even print. I remember someone getting mad at me (and who is still mad at me today because I saw the recent e-mail to my boss) for not driving 50 miles out to an event on a Saturday because I had the day off for my mom's birthday and the paper couldn't send someone else that day, either. Heck, it's Saturday. On Christmas Eve. And here I am at work.

Cheers,

Steven

Well the last thing I wanted to do was dive into the negative, or post just another slam. I for one appreciate the work that is done with the limited resources. I may not be aware how limited those resources are. Apparently I was not being realistic? It must be incredibly frustrating to work there these days. I appreciate you relating what it's like and I know it's not up to you.

So, what I'm hearing is ... no hope. Truly, that sucks. Personally, if I were editor, I'd start bagging some of the old standard meeting coverage which is all top down and start working more with real people facing real issues. Screw the politicians, complete waste of time being their mouthpiece ... imagine if the paper started telling folk's stories of what the real world is like, on the streets, in the mills, on the hill and in the trenches, how the politicos actions or inaction affect them ... to me that's what journalism is/was all about, providing the information that affects policy/change; to me, that's where the media should put their priority and why it's becoming no longer relevant. But I've been saying that for 20 years. Apparently I have "romantic" ideas on how democracy is supposed to work.

Apparently this thread is a waste of time. Guess I'll start a blog.

Nevermind.

In our democracy (republic, actually) one of the most important jobs the press has, IMO, is to report on what it is that politicians do. This most important job is the main reason we need that whole freedom of the press thing everyone is so fond of mentioning.

Politicians throughout the ages and in many countries today have limited or currently limit what can be reported thus keeping their citizens in the dark. When the press is limited in what they report you tend to see underground newspapers appear. What do they report on? Not the day to day of the citizens but on what it is the government is truly up to.

It is from the press here that the outrage on issues occur causing poticians to change their direction. I get what you're saying and think that it is an important component but all things being equal I want to know what my government is up to Federal, State and Local. There is no way every citizen can attend every meeting or keep up with every issue on their own. That is why it is important for the press to be our eyes and ears. Even on the mind numbingly boring local level issues.

Feel free to start your blog. If it has non-opinioned factual information about citizens in the area and how their lives are affected by various decisions I will be the first in line to read it.

Yep, pretty much civics 101. SOP. I was being fascetious about the blog.

Quoting people accurately would be a refreshing and welcome redirection of resources. I'd also like to see them dig a little deeper for "the rest of the story", especially as MWMI suggested, in politics.

A case study published by the Kennedy School of Government,
Al Gore and the "Embellishment" Issue: Press Coverage of the Gore Presidential Campaign describes how the Vice President's remarks on the Love Canal toxic waste site were misquoted. One AP reporter did expend the resources to get it right but felt her story was distorted by an editor.


Too nany stories come across as mere stenography. No follow-up questions, no requests for supporting evidence. Years ago, if you stayed up late, you'd hear Ted Koppel say, "Excuse sir, but you didn't answer my question." Anybody doing that now? (I go to bed early and don't watch much TV.)

OK