Read the post on E-Commerce Times

One reporter took to a wheelchair and navigated dozens of Northwest Indiana buildings to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act was being properly enforced.

Another reporter registered the late Johnny Appleseed as the new owner of Fort Wayne’s 22-story Lincoln Tower to prove how easy it is for those engaged in mortgage fraud to elude detection.

A third reporter continued to work on a series of articles about the state’s child protective services for months after she left the newspaper for a university job.

It would be an understatement to say I was impressed with their ingenuity and diligence.

Judging the contest, sponsored by Indiana’s Associated Press, I was also struck by a unifying thread of the public service entries. No matter how ingenious, diligent or dedicated, none of those reporters could have done their job without public records laws. Each of the reporters relied on government documents, databases, regulations or publications to assess the quality of government service their readers were receiving.

Sunday marks the beginning of the fifth annual Sunshine Week, a commemoration and celebration of government transparency that is supported by news organizations, universities and the American Society of News Editors. It’s an occasion to remind readers of the value and importance of public records and meetings laws, known as sunshine laws because they allow light to shine on government.

Sunshine laws aren’t unique to the United States, but our traditions are. From the very founding of our nation, the freedom to critique and even criticize government has been a fundamental right. That’s something that makes us strong and something worth celebrating, because it allows not just the press but individual citizens to hold government accountable.

Here at the AJC, we will join in the commemoration. Sunday’s editorial page will include commentary and statements from candidates for attorney general, which is the office charged with enforcing Georgia’s sunshine laws. We’ll have other commentary through the week.

I’ll commemorate as well by highlighting some of our own worthy stories on this public editor blog. I’ll give you some behind-the-scenes information on how we got the stories and the tools we use for reporting.

I hope you will join me, beginning Monday, in the discussion here. Sunshine Week is, after all, about your government and your access to hold it accountable.

This column was originally published on AJC.com on March 12, 2010.

Last Tuesday evening, March 2, the documentary series presented “The Suicide Tourist,” an extraordinary, intimate portrait of 59-year-old Craig Ewert, an American originally from Chicago, and his journey from being diagnosed with the incurable motor neutron disorder ALS — commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease — to his medically-assisted suicide in Zurich, Switzerland, where that practice is legal.

His wife of 37 years, Mary, is by his side throughout, and their children are also on camera at times in interviews. But Craig and Mary are the focus of this painful journey, displaying a grace and candor and intimacy about the most excruciating choice one can imagine. It is hard, and uncomfortable, to watch this unfold. I had to take a long walk in the cold after it was over. Yet it was, for me, one of the most riveting hours I’ve spent watching television. As I’ve said before about other PBS offerings, it is hard for me to imagine this being seen elsewhere on commercial television and without commercial interruption so that the engagement of the audience is not shattered and the impact diminished.

The hour-long film was directed by John Zaritsky, who has won numerous honors including an Academy Award in 1982. The program did not produce many reviews that I noticed, although here’s an interesting one from Alex Roberts on TV Soundoff, or many letters to the ombudsman. It did, however, produce a considerable outpouring on the Frontline Web site. The subject, obviously, is very controversial. There are many who believe such actions contradict religious beliefs, that “God has forbidden it” and that “you cannot play God.” Ewert muses about such things, himself. And there are others who would have liked to have seen related issues discussed, such as how afflicted people who can no longer make their views known deal with such choices.

But this was not a film about the issue. Rather, it was an amazingly up-close, poignant recording of the emotions and reasoning and care-giving of one family from soon after the diagnosis, through the fairly rapid deterioration, to the actual death of Craig Ewert. Those final hours involved access to Dignitas, the Swiss non-profit organization that, according to Frontline, has helped more than 1,000 people in terminal — and what to those persons are determined to be unbearable — conditions die since 1998.

There are other nations that permit medically-assisted suicide, and two U.S. states — Oregon and Washington. But only Switzerland allows outsiders to come for this procedure. That has led to criticism by some of what is called “suicide tourism,” from which the film draws its title.

What follows now is a sampling of the e-mails about “The Suicide Tourist” and then another group of letters from viewers who raised an issue, rather strongly, involving talk show host Tavis Smiley.
Here Are the ‘Suicide Tourist’ Letters

Thanks for the Frontline program on the death of the ALS patient. My daughter, who is 44 years old, has ALS, and has difficulty speaking. She is in a wheelchair and has refused invasive care. She has a hospice care nurse for pain management and likely will not live more than 6 months. All her family can do is support her in her decision, as this disease really does terrible things to the human system.

George Oliger, Monmouth Junction, NJ

Thank you for your program on Dignitas last night. I wish we had such a program in the United States.

Rena Down, New York, NY

After having viewed the “suicidal tourist,” aired on PBS 3/3/10, I was really grieved. Can Frontline offer a rebuttal? What about a person like myself who is strongly linked to my faith healing movement from which I found a true source of hope & healing and am a healed overcomer of MS, after I was offered virtually no hope from the medical community.

D. Knapp, Bolingbrook, IL

I congratulate PBS for showing the suicide tourist. It helped your audience to understand why suicide can be the more humane option. It also brings the subject of suicide out of the closet, so to speak.

New Canaan, CT

Loved Dolley Madison. Loved Pluto and Dr. Tyson. Love Antiques Roadshow. Love Eastenders and Are You Being Served. We believe your program about end of life suicide is in POOR TASTE AND SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN. SHAME ON PBS.

Martin & Doana Fite, Houston, TX

I have been a big supporter of PBS for years but today I have a concern about programming schedules. My 2 year old son was watching cartoons at 11:45 am and then as programming changed at 12:00 pm there was an advertisement for The Suicide Tourist. I have no problem with this programming but there should just be a better time to put on the advertising for it. Not at the end of cartoons.

Lysa Zandstra, Ferndale, WA

Tavis Smiley: His ‘Black Agenda’ Has ‘Nothing to Do with PBS.’

Several people wrote to me this week about a forum — scheduled for March 20 at Chicago State University — that was set up and will be moderated by Tavis Smiley. The event, called “We Count! The Black Agenda is the American Agenda,” will feature several prominent African Americans invited by Smiley.

The press release from Smiley’s own event production company, Tavis Smiley Presents, announcing this meeting publicly started out this way: “Some noted Black leaders recently have suggested publicly that President Obama does not need to focus on Black issues. In response to mounting evidence showing African Americans are disproportionately lagging behind on all economic indicators despite assertions of a so-called ‘post-racial’ era, Tavis Smiley said Tuesday he will moderate a national conversation examining whether in fact there needs to be a Black agenda and the accountability of leadership to address issues facing Black Americans.”

The press release was issued on Feb. 23, but nobody wrote to me until this week, perhaps because on Wednesday, March 3, The Associated Press took note of the conference and its political implications in a story that clearly got attention, and to which some of those who wrote to me referred. The story was headlined: “PBS Host Smiley Calls Meeting to Urge Black Agenda.”

Now, that is an accurate headline in the sense that Smiley is the well-known host of his own, popular, late night talk show on PBS for a half-hour five days a week based at member-station KCET in Los Angeles. But PBS has nothing to do with that Chicago meeting.

Smiley has been, and remains, a force across much of today’s media scene: as a talk show host on radio and television, entrepreneur, author, advocate, head of the Tavis Smiley Foundation, and for the past 10 years, until he brought it to a close early this year, host of an annual “The State of the Black Union” conference that was televised by C-SPAN and developed a large following.

Whether it is his high-profile role as a PBS talk show host that most defines him publicly — something that Smiley probably does not agree with — it clearly is part of his celebrity, and I’ve written about him a number of times. On a couple of those occasions, it has been about his involvement elsewhere that some viewers, or just people who hear about it, are critical of and call attention to because of his association with PBS.

When I told him about the mail I was receiving and the association people were making with PBS after stories about the upcoming conference began to appear, Smiley said, in a telephone interview, “I can’t help that. PBS is not my employer. Taxpayers are not funding this and it has nothing to do with PBS. I never gave up my right to host other forums,” he said. “As long as I meet PBS standards on PBS,” that’s what is important, but “it doesn’t let anybody tell me how to conduct my conferences. None of this is a conflict. I actually have a much larger following outside of PBS from all the things I do on other mediums.”

Smiley, indeed, is not a PBS employee. His PBS talk show is produced through Smiley’s own production company and KCET. But, as I reported previously, about one-sixth of the cost of the talk show program comes from PBS funds, according to program executives. And the KCET Web site links to his program’s homepage, which includes Smiley’s video blog, “Take 2 with Tavis,” in which he talked about the upcoming Chicago conference in a March 4 posting.

So what we have here is another example of PBS being linked to things that it really has no part of — or thinks it has no part of, or maybe has just a teensy, indirect part of — because people associate certain figures and programs with the television service. I have written many times about these various situations and I can’t blame some viewers for drawing these comparisons and complaining about them, in part, because PBS doesn’t seem to go out of its way to separate itself from these external associations, or to insist that others make it clear when PBS has no part in such activities.

What follows is a sampling of the e-mails (there were also phone calls) on this subject.
Strong Feelings about Smiley and PBS

The corporation for public broadcasting gets taxpayer funding. That makes Mr. Smiley our employee. “PBS host Smiley calls meeting to urge black agenda.” He’s promoting his divisive “We Count” conference on the PBS website. I don’t want my tax dollars going to support a racist. If he wants to continue this abhorrent behavior on his own time — give him more of it.

Mike Muetzel, New Port Richey, FL

Tavis Smiley is advocating a “Black Agenda” for Washington. This is blatantly racist!! I am disgusted that a PBS journalist (supported by public dollars) would support such a bigoted stand. Public figures such as Tavis should be more sensitive to everyone’s race, not just Black Americans. What if one of your journalists supported a “White Agenda”? He should support a “What’s best for America Agenda”! This man makes it hard for me to continue to contribute to PBS. You need to pull him off your programming as he perpetuates Black Victimization and Entitlement mentality.

Frank Brettschneider, Fort Gratiot, MI

Editorial integrity? Your host Tavis Smiley is now over the line and is an advocate for political favor. Your relationship should end immediately.

Piperton, TN

What is Smiley doing promoting any political agenda on PBS? PBS is funded by tax dollars and should not be an advocate or activist for any political agenda. Stop this now.

North St. Paul, MN

I would like to know why my tax dollars are used to support PBS. You are promoting an agenda. And I don’t think that my tax dollars should support your agenda. I will take this up with my congressman. But as an Ombudsman, do you agree with this? You have Tavis on asking to support a “black agenda.” I thought we were all Americans.

Yorba Linda, CA

Other Stuff

Pluto was great. Excellent show, a new school classic and great for adults as well.

Brett Roseberry, Phoenix, AZ

Tonight’s NewsHour had a segment about Sen. Bunning and his vote against the extension of unemployment benefits. Gwen Ifill referred to it as a “filibuster,” which it is not. Then she mocked his position as an “obstructionist,” with absolutely no mention as to why he voted as he did. Sen. Bunning is a patriot who only asked that the Senate follow its “Pay-go” Policy. Instead of discussing the merits of his position, PBS and the other Liberal media decided to roast this gentleman with no mention of the real issue at hand. So for this, I give you an “F” in Journalism 101.

R. Nolan, Phoenix, AZ

(Ombudsman’s Note: Ifill did use the word filibuster, but in a procedural way in terms of forcing a vote. Actually, in the film clips Bunning made it clear in that segment that he was not filibustering and I thought the clips also made it clear what Bunning was objecting to and why he was voting as he had. She didn’t use the word “obstructionist” but did describe Bunning as “irascible, I think the kindest word even his colleagues would use.”)

Why were only Boies and Olson on Bill Moyers? Was that fair and balanced? Is Bill Moyers’ lobbing softballs enough to satisfy the average PBS’ viewers intellectual capacity to observe a vigorous “debate”? Only those that pass a certain ideological litmus test are given a voice. Please invite Mr. Moyers and others at PBS to invite those who don’t share PBS’ editors’ views to the discussion table. I think we’re big enough to handle it.

San Diego, CA

(Ombudsman’s Note: Both lawyers, although one generally described as liberal and the other as conservative, are united in opposing California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative that put an end to same-sex marriage in that state.)

I notice that PBS news reporters refer to companies who contribute to PBS as being an “underwriter” of the program. It seems like a strange term to me to use in this context. I believe that underwriting has more to do with issuing insurance or financing a venture. I think it is unusual to refer to companies that contribute money in this way, and that “donor” might be more accurate.

Ellicott City, MD

I find most of the media tend to accept the president’s line that the public option cannot be passed because it does not have the necessary support, and you are no exception. Last night, Feb 25, in your report on the Blair house health care debate, you showed various clips from the proceedings, but it is noteworthy that you did not show Speaker Pelosi asking the president why he had ignored calls for the public option. This is an important question. Nearly 60% of the American people support the public option, which is itself a compromise from single payer health care. Yet those who support single payer health insurance and the public option were excluded from the Blair House conference. To me this is big news and you are failing the American people by ignoring it. On August 18, the New York Times reported that Obama has made a deal with the American Federation of Hospitals regarding the public option. This too should have been mentioned in your report. This is not one-time news. It is a continuing factor in the health-care debate and should be a continuing part of your reporting on the debate.

Deborah Allen, New York, NY

This column was originally published on PBS.org on March 5, 2010.

These are among the recent inquiries:

From Terri Taylor of Westminster: “I am writing to express my disappointment that the Times does not provide results or even mention ‘smaller’ sports when providing coverage in its Sports page. I am specifically talking about swimming. This weekend is men’s PAC-10 swimming and last weekend was PAC-10 women’s swimming competition, both held locally at the Belmont Plaza pool in Long Beach. You never even mentioned this at all. You don’t even have a category online that includes swimming.”

From Georges Francoeur of Gilbert, Ariz.: “For the last two weeks I’ve been looking in your online paper for information on the UCLA Women Basketball Team. All I got is a big NOTHING! All the coverage is on the men’s side of the house. From what I know, the team is having an excellent year, and the L.A. Times has devoted nobody to cover and detail the wonderful year the team is having.”

From Marilyn Lusk of Irvine: “I have been a subscriber to the LA Times for over 30 years. I am shocked at the poor coverage of college basketball. Here we are in March and there is practically nothing about teams other than UCLA and USC … sometimes Gonzaga. L.A. is full of people from the East and Midwest. People who are college basketball fans want to know about the best teams, regardless of their locations.”

The Sports department, like all the others in the newsroom, has undergone painful reductions in recent years. Sports Editor Mike James addressed those cutbacks, and the difficult coverage decisions that result, in this response:

Because our staff, space in the paper and resources are so much smaller than they used to be, we simply can no longer cover everything the way we once did. Consequently, we have to make the difficult decisions every day on what events and sports we do cover and those that we can’t. Our decision has been to try to make sure we reach the greatest number of readers we can with resources available, and regrettably, that means that some areas don’t get much regular coverage. So our energies are more focused toward the beats with high readership, such as the Lakers, Dodgers, USC and UCLA, the NFL and the Olympics. In addition, whenever we uncover exceptional stories at any level in whatever sport, we’ll go after those stories because the subject matter will apply to a broad spectrum of readers.

Would I like to be able to cover the many colleges and universities in the area comprehensively? Of course. I’d love to be able to have a much greater presence on high school sports as well — we have more than 600 schools in our readership area. But that takes a substantial staff that we just don’t have now. And it takes a great deal of room in a shrinking Sports section.

True, we haven’t been covering a lot of women’s basketball this season, aside from a couple of features, largely because women’s basketball hasn’t been a major draw in L.A. Now that we’re in the Pac-10 tournament, though, we are covering that with a staff writer, and should one of our teams advance, we’ll cover that team in the NCAA tournament as well.

The Loyola Marymount men’s basketball team had a decent season, after its abysmal record a year ago, and had a couple of upsets late in the season. The Lions nearly made it to the conference tournament final, a game that we would have covered in Las Vegas had they won their semifinal game. And had they done that and advanced to the NCAA tournament, we would have covered them as long as they were alive. Of course, had we known that LMU was going to upset heavily favored Gonzaga late in the season, we would have covered that game. But alas, we can’t predict upsets like that and can’t afford to cover every game with the chance that an upset might occur.

In any event, we’re trying to cover events that mean the most to the most readers. It’s a balancing act every day. I won’t say all our choices are always correct, but I’ll say that they are all made after careful consideration.

This column was originally published on LATimes.com on March 12, 2010.

The myth and reality have been on display in recent weeks over The Post’s coverage of whether White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is helping or hurting President Obama.

It began Feb. 21 with an op-ed column by Dana Milbank, who countered calls for Obama to sack Emanuel. Milbank forcefully argued that the president suffered first-year political losses because he ignored Emanuel’s advice.

More than a week later, a 2,300-word front-page story by reporter Jason Horowitz embraced Milbank’s thesis. It said a “contrarian narrative is emerging” that Emanuel is “a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice.”

That prompted reader complaints and blogosphere chatter that The Post, having been “spun” by Emanuel’s camp, decided to institutionally support the embattled chief of staff through Milbank’s column and the Horowitz story.

But if there was a newsroom conspiracy, legendary Post political journalist David Broder didn’t get the memo. In a Thursday op-ed, he ridiculed Milbank’s column as “remarkable fiction” and said Horowitz had written “a purported news story.” Together, he wrote, they “sounded, for all the world, like the kind of orchestrated leaks that often precede a forced resignation in Washington.”

Horowitz told me that his story “had already started taking shape” before Milbank’s column appeared and dismissed the notion of coordination. “We did not confer,” he said. Milbank said the same, adding that he knew Horowitz was working on an Emanuel profile but didn’t know its content.

As a columnist, it’s Milbank’s job to offer a point of view. And it’s fine for Broder to use his column to assert that Milbank is off base. Differing views, well argued, are what make opinion pages stimulating.

But a news story is different. It needs to inform in a way that is balanced, authoritative and transparent to readers.

Horowitz told me the thesis for his story emerged from neutral, broad reportorial inquiry. As he talked to a wide range of informed people before Milbank’s column appeared, he said, many debunked the Emanuel-is-the-problem view. “It wasn’t just a few isolated people,” he said, adding that many offered “a new view.” That, and his anecdotal account of Emanuel’s activities, formed “the news value of it.”

Broder disagreed. “There was no news in it,” he insisted to me. “You should expect to find news on the front page of the newspaper.”

I think Broder is partially right. The Horowitz story deserved to be in The Post. While offering no major revelations, it did flesh out the thesis. But Milbank’s column already had sparked days of discussion in political circles and among the public. Displaying Horowitz’s story at the top of the front page elevated its significance despite a late-to-the-game feel.

A greater problem, I think, was its heavy reliance on anonymous quotes. At least a dozen people were quoted by name, showing depth of reporting. But there were more than a half dozen others quoted anonymously, comprising more than a quarter of the story’s length. Most supported Emanuel. The story could have stood on its own without them.

Readers properly complain about The Post’s overuse of anonymous sources. They’re often unavoidable, and Horowitz said he granted anonymity only after failing to persuade sources to speak on the record. But assertions offered with impunity erode credibility, especially when politically savvy readers suspect that Emanuel supporters are trying to spin The Post.

In the first two months of this year, more than 70 Post stories have relied on anonymous quotes. Based on archival research, that’s well ahead of the pace for last year. Simply put, too many appear in The Post.

Broder said he was troubled by the number of anonymous sources in Horowitz’s story. “I think it’s a general problem at this paper,” he said, adding “it’s a particular problem when it involves a matter of policy or personnel and readers are left in the dark about who’s talking.”

But Broder’s column criticizing Milbank and Horowitz contained a beefy section that anonymously reported “what others in the White House think is going on” with Emanuel.

“I’m not pure about it,” Broder readily acknowledged. “I did it myself.”

This column was originally published in The Washington Post on March 7, 2010.

The editorial argued that “enactment of a sound health-care reform bill this year remains urgent” and said “the President’s proposal would greatly expand access to essential health care while beginning to contain its costs, without compromising its quality.”

But Allan Block, the chairman of Block Communications Inc., sponsored a full-page ad that maintained that “the economy must recover before we can cure health care” and argued that President Obama’s proposal will destroy jobs and reduce hiring.”

Paula Steinker wrote to me that “as The Blade’s ombudsman and a journalism professor, you must be very embarrassed … The Blade must maintain at least the appearance of objectivity.”

Sorry, Ms. Steinker, but I am actually very proud that this newspaper allows and is willing to air diversity of opinion – even among the newspaper’s owners. John Robinson Block is the publisher and the editor-in-chief of The Blade.

His twin brother Allan is chairman of the board. They disagree on the health-care proposal, obviously – as I suspect do many family members in this nation. Neither brother has attempted to prevent the other from sharing his views with our readers.

That strikes me as being completely healthy.

==

Thomas Pellitieri was one of several readers who found it odd that The Blade ran a long story about Tom Noe on the front page – especially since it was written by the Columbus Dispatch.

Why? he wondered. What was new? He also found the headline, which quoted Noe as saying, “God has a plan for me,” highly offensive, especially since it appeared on a Sunday.

Good questions. The answer is that this is the first interview Noe, the former coin dealer and political power broker now in Ohio’s Hocking Correctional Facility, has given since he went to prison following perhaps the politically most important fraud case in Ohio history. The Blade’s exposure of Noe’s criminal activities, including the theft of millions of Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation funds, was an enormous scandal, which experts think contributed to the landslide 2006 Democratic victories in Ohio.

What Noe now says about all this was something the editors thought would be highly interesting to the people in his hometown.

If Mr. Pelliteri found his statement “God has a plan for me” offensive, it needs to be noted that these are Noe’s words, not The Blade’s. The editors thought that might provide some insight into how the man convicted of stealing $13 million from the state thinks.

Incidentally, the term that came to my mind when I read those words was not offensive, but chutzpah. (As in, what nerve!)

==

Reader Kent Gardam thought The Blade showed bias toward the Jon Stainbrook faction in a March 2 story about the Lucas County Board of Elections. The Republican Party in the county, as everyone in local politics knows, is in a state of civil war, with both Mr. Stainbrook and Jeff Simpson claiming to be the rightful party chairman.

Both factions had their own candidate for the elections board. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said she was prevented by law from trying to sort out which faction was which and instead picked an old GOP warhorse, Ben Marsh, to fill the seat.

Mr. Gardam didn’t challenge the story’s facts but thought The Blade showed bias by mentioning in the headline that Mr. Stainbrook was denied his seat, while not mentioning David Dmytryka, the Simpson faction’s candidate for the board, till very late in the story.

Tom Troy, who covers politics for The Blade, said the emphasis was because Mr. Stainbrook, a far more visible figure, nominated himself to the board. Mr. Dmytryka is far less prominent and was essentially the Simpson faction’s candidate for the board.

That makes sense to me, but I do agree with the reader that Mr. Dmytryka’s name should have been mentioned far higher in the story, when the newspaper explained that neither candidate had been appointed. I don’t think that there was any deliberate bias; the reporter was merely trying to relay a series of complicated facts on deadline, and it is far easier for anyone to later criticize how they happened to be put together.

Mr. Gardam also questioned The Blade’s relating that Mr. Marsh, who is 82, lives in “a South Toledo retirement complex.” He felt that it was designed to call attention to his age.

In fact, old-timers (like me) think of Ben Marsh in connection with Maumee politics, and it is pertinent that he now lives in Toledo.

This column was originally published in the Toledo Blade on March 7, 2010.

It had a mix of regional, national and international news that good local papers are supposed to bring to readers. I sometimes criticize reporters and editors here, pointing out errors and taste issues, as I see them. I think it’s important to praise journalists here when appropriate. The Thursday paper was a role model for journalism.

Horrible coincidences are part of life and part of the news, and reporter Eva Ruth Moravec captured the horror of losing a child suddenly — twice last week. She wrote a Page 1 story Thursday about Victor Adame, 18, a local soldier who had driven all the way from Virginia to see his family between assignments. He spoke by cell phone with his wife at 6:06 the night before Valentine’s Day and died about 90 minutes later when he apparently rear-ended a fuel truck on Interstate 10, just 25 miles from home.

Two days earlier, Moravec had another Page 1 piece, about 17-year-old Jesse Yanez, who tripped over a curb and was run over and killed by a pickup truck a few hours after Adame died. Adding to the tragedy, Yanez was on his way to his father’s home, a father with whom he only recently connected.

Here’s another coincidence, not as tragic as burying your child, but did you notice reporter Craig Kapitan’s vivid account, also Thursday, of the murder trial in Victoria of Joe Estrada, who just turned 20? He was convicted later that day of capital murder in the killing of restaurateur Viola Barrios, who was killed by an arrow shot into her head. Prosecutors Wednesday called as an expert witness Gary Gassman, whose family owns an archery business.

On the preceding page was an obituary for Gassman’s mother, Alma, who, the headline said, “helped operate her family’s archery shop.” She was 97 and, a grandson said, “It was just her time to go.” You can’t say the same about the two boys-about-to-become-men who died last weekend.

From election coverage to Tiger Woods’ return to the public eye to the CPS Energy lawsuit settlement to gripping reads, the Thursday paper was full of information interesting for both visiting and local readers.

Just to keep us humble, however, a reader from Fredericksburg, Chris Berger, assailed the Express-News in a letter to the editor for too many stories about animal abuse, closing with: “You disgust me.”

Another letter writer, retired Army Master Sgt. Patrick R. Conley and Vietnam War vet, chided editors for a Monday Page 1 headline, “Civilians killed during intensive fight for city,” about the U.S./Afghan assault on Marjah, a Taliban stronghold. “A lot of good people die,” Conley wrote. “That is one reason it is called war.”

And Mavis Caudill, who said she “is not related to … or acquainted with” any of the participants, complained that a Feb. 10 story, “Students put brains to test in competition,” about the Academic WorldQuest, had too much information, including a photo, of the Reagan High School scholars and too little about the winning team – Alex Parma, Erica Dietzel, Sean Larson and Garrett Shuffield from Communications Arts High School in the Northside ISD.

She’s right. I hope mentioning it here will help provide balance.

This column was published in the San Antonio Express-News on February 21, 2010.

“I am hearing these concerns and sharing the experiences of the Organization of New Ombudsmen in improving journalistic accuracy and fairness, accountability and transparency, independence and credibility at news organizations around the world,” Hanif reports in his blog, “Hanif on Media.”

“How Azeris choose to develop their news organizations obviously will be their decisions. The societal challenges are not to be taken lightly,” he wrote.

“I’m hopeful that, as elsewhere, Azeris from editors to layman, business people to officialdom, can realize benefits from ONO’s experience in bolstering journalistic independence and accountability, thus promoting free and thriving societies.”

Read Hanif’s blog from Azerbaijan