I was taken by articles on the front page of The El Paso Times today.
One, “EP icon, educator Strelzin is dead at 75” was insightful, informative, thorough, balanced — well written. I enjoyed reading the article and appreciate the information that it provided.
The other “Some question wording of propositions” was shallow and slanted. It seemed to me that much of the article came directly from the people who want the propositions to pass. Points that might make the propositions unattractive to voters were not covered. You can read the articles from Brutus on this blog if you are interested in the “hidden consequences” of these propositions.
Could it be that the skills of the two reporters are vastly different? More probably it was the editorial policy of the Times that restricted the content of the article about the propositions.
The Times is like most other daily newspapers in that it is struggling to remain economically viable.
I hope that the editors and publishers come to the realization that the average age of their paper edition subscribers is older than that of their electronic readers. Many that I know have cancelled their subscriptions in the past years, not so much because they are angry but because they feel that they know what the Times will print and don’t want to waste time.
Realizing that the older readers will be dying sooner than the younger ones, I still think that the Times would be well served to recognize that many of the older readers have more experience and hard earned wisdom than some of the younger. In short it is harder to sell a point of view to them simply by saying something is so.
I for one would be happy to read articles that address both sides of the issues. Leave the editorials on the editorial page. Become a source of knowledge.
The electronic version is an opportunity to develop a new constituency. The Times might even find that younger readers would appreciate the value of balanced reporting.
Muckraker
elpasospeak 