A letter from the editor

0 Comments | Insight on the News, June 3, 2002 | by Paul M. Rodriguez

Dear Readers,

Have you ever wondered how stories are selected for print, radio and TV broadcast or cable news? Sure, breaking news is an important element, but so too is the mix of newsmen and their perspectives about world events. As it were, the proof is in the pudding.

What brings this to mind is something a young lady working on a journalism paper asked us recently about what stories we pursue, and why much of the news in so-called mainstream outlets is so dull, repetitive or biased.

One reason is the constant curtailment of resources, leading to reliance on wire or cooperative news reporting. Another reason, frankly, is an all-too-prevalent reaction known in the business as "shark feeding" or the "wolf-pack mentality." A big story breaks and all hell breaks loose chasing it. Some mighty fine reporting comes from this, but so does reporting that fails to put the news into context so that it makes sense to the average Joe or Jill. This part of the craft increasingly is relegated to opinion pages, but once it was the domain of newsmen who could report the facts and tell you what was important.

Consider this week's cover story by Timothy W. Maier, the special report by J. Michael Waller, the article by Kelly Patricia O'Meara and Jamie Dettmer's political notebook. Each story plumbs the facts and tells why the information is important from a public-policy standpoint. It should be important to you because it's your tax money being spent.

Brandon Spun's story on land mines resulted from questioning why "we" can't dispose of these deadly but simple devices. Sure, there are millions around, but what's so hard about disarming them? Then there's Sam MacDonald's article on third parties--races in 2002 and 2004 should be fun to watch. Stephen Goode's story on censorship exposes some big lies, too. But not where you might expect.

Until next week then, God bless.