Dear Readers,

0 Comments | Insight on the News, June 24, 2003 | by Paul M. Rodriguez

Byline: Paul M. Rodriguez, INSIGHT

Dear Readers,

In reviewing the stories for this issue it struck me how similar the themes are to stories that appear in other publications, yet are different in that we dug a little deeper for context on the news that folks need to make up their own minds about issues based on facts.

Like a friend of ours says, "It's not rocket science." Indeed, it's not as I explained the other night to a couple hundred journalism students who wanted to know the secret of "investigative reporting." I told them to just ask questions and don't be embarrassed about hurting anyone's feelings. The job is about getting the facts and telling stories in context. Except for Mama, everyone is fair game.

A recent trip to the Middle East brought home the stark reality of how hard this concept is overseas despite the fact that people, no matter where they live, just want to know what's going on. The role of the press is no different in some other countries than in the United States insofar as outlets just won't, or can't, go that extra mile to get a story lest it offend someone or the government gets irritated.

It seems to us here that that is exactly what we're supposed to do, though not necessarily just for the sake of irritating people or institutions of authority. Rather, we wear out the shoe leather because that's what the job is all about getting the story despite the obstacles.

Whether in the United Arab Emirates or Pakistan or Afghanistan or even in the United States, people want to know the facts and deserve them. Yet too many times members of press are afraid or feel threatened or, worse yet, feel they may lose friends if they pursue a story.

Whether we're talking about patriotism (which some outlets think means a dirty four-letter word) or damage done to children due to well-intentioned medical professionals, we believe it's better to air out the laundry than try to stuff the dirty stuff in with the clean goods.

For example, despite some carping from government folks around these parts, our intrepid investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara long ago began to report on lost or unaccounted billions in federal agency coffers. Seems the so-called mainstream press has caught on to this story and think they've discovered sliced white bread. We're glad about this but wonder where they've been all this time as it were, it's been right in front of their noses the whole time.

The same holds true, for example, with the expose Timothy W. Maier has in this issue about FBI mix-ups on the identities of the Sept. 11 terrorists or Martin Edwin Andersen's exclusive on security problems at the U.S. nuclear laboratories. These issues have been laying around for months (and we've been reporting on them) but not so others. Why we wonder?

Unlike many press outlets overseas, "we" supposedly don't have restrictions here. Yet too often it appears to be so. This is a question that came up often in visits with foreign journalists; the implied government control that I repeatedly denied existed to no avail. But they seem to see something many of us in the states don't see. Or at least, many of us in the news business. That is: The contrast between our freedoms to report and that which often we write which appears timid or worse. At least at Insight that's not the case. Thankfully to you we stay on our toes. We would not want it any other way.

From the nation's capital, I'm your newsman in Washington. God bless.