Osam bin-WHO?

I felt sick this morning.

Sick from dissatisfaction of what was expected of me - due in part of what some people think our readers expect from us.

Less than 24 hours ago, President Barack Obama announced Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces. Bin Laden was allegedly the mastermind behind (among many terrorist acts) the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that collapsed the two World Trade Center towers, put a hole in one side of the Pentagon and downed a plane full of passengers in a rural Pennsylvania field. The incidents that day forever changed our world.

Today, in the aftermath of this man's death, many are buzzing about bin Laden's death. This is a man who organized al-Queda, but has been hands off for about two years. Most agree that his death is not the end of our nation's war against terror. Perhaps it is the beginning of the end, but there is certainly still a long journey ahead.

His death has not changed our world, though. Not near the way so many things have changed our world. There were no U.S. casualties in the battle that took bin Laden's life.

Yet, on the dawn of bin Laden's death, my publisher (who is a rarity in that he came up on the editorial side to the publisher position), energetically insisted that all of our weekly newspapers come up with "local" coverage of this. He even went so far as to post breaking news to solicit comments and locate sources.

We've compiled the slew of elected officials' statements. Now we're to seek out local sources - local reaction.

I just do not feel this is our role as hyper-local, weekly, community newspapers. The announcement of bin Laden's death came late Sunday night. Our papers go to press Tuesday night. For me, my newspaper hits the stands late Wednesday afternoon and is delivered via U.S. Postal Service to subscribers on Thursday.

My prediction: by Friday talk of bin Laden's death will have dwindled significantly and by this time next week it will be just a fleeting thought. Within two weeks from now, it won't be talked about at all.

I agree with localized coverage on Sept. 11, 2001. It changed our thinking, it changed our lifestyles. It disrupted that day in everyone's life whether they were on the East Coast or Midwest.

This man's death does not disrupt our lifestyle. Troops are not being immediately withdrawn as a result. Almost nothing changes except a moral victory for the United States.

In some places, celebration erupted in the streets. A crowd gathered outside the White House. Impromptu rallies formed in Lawrence, Kan., and Columbia, Mo., where there are large populations of college students. In some places, people have pulled their American flags out the closet and hung them proudly. Others have put up banners declaring the victory.

But here, in the community my newspaper serves, little seems changed. I cannot find any more American flags than usual. I do not see any special signs or banners. This is the same town that has held half a dozen Tea Party rallies in the past three years. This town's patriotism is not in question. But like many small communities, it was exciting news last night. By noon Monday people had moved on with their lives. By Thursday, I doubt many here will care much anymore.

Had a group staged a rally, had people displayed extra patriotism or had more people been willing to talk about when I tried to do man-on-the-street interviews; I would gladly splash this on the front page.

One of our reporters said that newspapers are "a rough draft of history." True. But the draft is very rough if it's some redneck's uneducated opinion. Meanwhile, here, I have a full list of local issues that weigh readers' minds: pit bull bans, flooding issues and cost increases for curbside recycling among other things.

As a small town, community newspaper, we need to focus on documenting this town's history; not wasting time and space for something nobody seems willing to talk about. We are the rough draft of history for this community, not for the nation.

Sure, there are plenty of other angles to consider. I'm tracking down military service members from our community who will be headed to Afghanistan soon. Ideally I would find the family of someone who was currently over there. But with our deadlines, producing something worthwhile is going to be difficult as I'm already having a hard time getting known sources to call me back.

I digress.

Whatever this community wants to make a big deal of, I'm willing to print in the newspaper. Anything else just seems forced.

Of blogs and councilmen

It's 9 a.m. three days before Christmas. I'm a journalist working feverishly on an early deadline. And my coffee is cold.


I think a little humor is good for a blog - a professional blog, not an anonymous personal blog. But how far is too far?

I have two blog thoughts I'm holding back on for the moment.

Following a recent city council meeting, I asked an incumbent if he was going to file for reelection. All other incumbents had filed and he had toyed with the idea of running for state rep. in the past. So really I was just fishing for the scoop.

When asked if he was going to file for reelection, he replied, "I'm not up yet. It's not my year."

I replied, "Yes it is. It was in the paper - twice."

"Hey, Mayor," he asked, "Who's up this year?"

"Well, it was Bill and Ted last time," (names changed to protect the innocent) the mayor replied, "So it's you and Jill."

"Oh," the councilman said. "I'll be in City Hall first thing in the morning to file."

I wouldn't go into that much detail for a blog on my newspaper's Web site, but I think it would be humorous to mention that he didn't realize he was up for reelection.

Would I be burning a bridge with a source? This is a pretty easy-going councilman and it looks like he may run unopposed. But would I have a headline in the paper soon 'Councilman forgets to file, launches write-in campaign' if I had not said anything?

Other thought on a blog: I've been toying with a blog that is a spoof on a Christmas song. The spoof could go two ways: poke fun with a reflection of the year or make it timeless to suit the city. Would the "funny" one make too many people mad?

Oh blog, how you vex me.

Electing to not elect

As usual I have a lot to do, but have decided to tend to my personal blog instead.


This issue is timely because it's an election day, albeit a small election day. A year ago we were voting on a president, members of congress and the statehouse. This year it's sales tax renewals and smoking bans in the area. For my newspaper, all we're covering is the law enforcement sales tax renewal.

I'm not voting this time around because I'm not registered. I haven't voted in the past couple elections. It's mainly been because I've been moving around too much or just too darn lazy to register. I voted in the presidential primary in another state, then a few months later moved up here. This combination of moving around and laziness for once worked to my advantage.

Long has there been the debate about whether journalists should even be registered to vote - let alone carry out their civic duty. My personal belief has been we should exercise that right. I don't buy the "You can't blame me because I didn't vote" excuse. You had an opportunity to affect the outcome. I think we have to be careful with local elections when voting as journalists, but national elections never bothered me.

Back to my point, electing to not elect enhanced my work performance. We'll get to that in a moment. First, some background.

I've always felt like I'm a pretty non-partisan guy. When I was 18, I registered as a Democrat - much to my father's dismay. In college, I voted for the failed Green Party. Later in college, I registered as a Republican. I've always felt it's more important to have a good leader surrounded by sound checks and balances than to vote purely on political affiliation. I assume everyone has the best intentions (unless otherwise uncovered), so throw that part out of the equation. Political affiliation does not make someone good or evil. A good leader will listen to the people, follow the checks and balances; therefore make the best decisions. If an idea on their platform does not suit the constituents or gets booed by the checks and balances, it will get thrown out and the best idea comes to fruition. A bad leader can have the best ideas, but with poor execution can never get it done or not do it right.

I digress.

With all the town hall meetings and tea parties full of angry Republicans, I found myself faced with people looking at me with distrustful eyes. I am, after all, part of the "Liberal media."

At one local tea party rally, I took a photo of a man wearing a patriotic shirt and a flag pole with two flags: the United States flag and a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. When I asked for his name, he replied, "Depends, who did you vote for?"

To me, it doesn't matter. To him, it's a matter of whether he trusts this journalist. What "slant" am I going to take on this story? As they stated many times during the rally, the media has been "downplaying" these rallies. I'm holding back obscenities here, but that makes no freakin' sense to me. Anyway, I told him I didn't vote.

I was met with more skepticism and distrust by him.

"Why not?" he asked.

I explained the aforementioned. I also told him I'm a non-partisan guy and here for unbiased reporting. Still seeming skeptic, he told me his name and thoughts on the situation.

That leads to another problem. There is also mistrust when you don't vote. Especially among some the Republican crowds. To many of them the mindset is, "Don't you know how many people have died for your freedom to do this? So go vote!" They can't comprehend why we would need to stay unbiased, until we vote for someone they don't agree with.

It's usually a lose-lose situation.

But in this case, I guess I won.