2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

dave, emily ---

it's not about good or bad news --- it's about whether the news being reported is done with depth and credibility. for example, if there's a story about a fire or murder (always is), why do all the local new stations interview the drunk neighbor who knows nothing about the situation or the crime? Why aren't these tv journalists interviewing experts on crime, e.g., experts on domestic abuse or psychosis? they rarely if ever do.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context