• I'd like to see a balanced approach of news. The pros and cons of subjects, not just copying some important AP stories that really impact our lives and future.

    We don't see much out side of the community. Why is that? There are people and activities outside the city limits that are impacting us and may or may not cause great angst.

    And I would love indepth coverage of something that are in our community that are impacting us. Two paragraphs sometimes drive me nuts.

    November 17, 2009 at 4:05 p.m.

  • "Would you prefer we don't cover such trials in detail so as to avoid appearing sensational?"
    No, we would not. And what kind of remark is that from a newspaper editor? If you've been paying attention to comments you know readers were really disappointed in the Advocate's sorry job of covering a recent gangbanger trial.

    November 17, 2009 at 11:18 a.m.

  • You may count me as another vote for coolgranny's dislike for editorializing masquerading as reporting. I hasten to add that I have been very pleased to find almost none of this within the pages of the Advocate. You appear to be making a conscious effort to report the news and allow your readers to reach their own conclusions about it. This is journalism as it should be practiced, and I sincerely hope it continues.

    The New York Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other so-called "Main Stream" print media are circling the drain, getting ready to go down, yet they cannot seem to see that their biased "reporting" is the primary, if not sole, reason their readership continues to decline. They point the finger at the Internet, talk radio, Fox News and any other source that does not agree with their left-wing vision of the world, when the reality is they should be facing a mirror and pointing at it.

    November 16, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.

  • As the sentinel for good government and policing, I would like to see more in-depth muckraking coverage when wrongdoing occurs. Being cozy with those you have to cover can become a conflict of interest.

    November 16, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.

  • ex, "Dragnet" I think. Makes me feel old now. lol

    November 16, 2009 at 7:49 a.m.

  • Chris, to be quite honest. Journalisn needs to focus on compare and contrast articles of just about every major news event. The newspaper media constantly slants as does most of television. The reader should be interested enough in the articles and columns to want to pursue the topic, either on line or through other references. The reader can then draw their own conclusions. It is extremely boring to read personal opinions in the written media. We used to subscribe to many major magazines because we thought the articles were fair and balanced. This was before that phrase was even thought about by those on television. We no longer subscribe. Why? Most of the time articles reflect personal agendas of the writer. This isn't my idea of a good read. Columns meant to entertain are just that, entertainment. However, when it comes to real news, the events that will affect the readers, it needs to be the truth and the whole truth, even if the truths are polar opposites. The blog sites are popular because the people who really want the truth out there, respond after researching. Journalists must really get back to the basics of ethics. Hopefully, you will walk away with this concept and spread the wealth, so to speak. If this type of journalism isn't possible in a small town newspaper, then it needs to stick with what is happening locally. Facts, just the facts.

    November 16, 2009 at 6:39 a.m.