Things might be getting better over at the Times. It seems that they have a new reporter that knows how to write a newspaper article.
She had this article in the Sunday, October 5, 2014 edition.
The article was informative, well written, fair and thorough. Unlike much of what we read in the Times it was not a publicity piece for some organization. The reporter actually investigated the situation and told the story. Even more surprising is that the article was about one of our local governments, EPISD.
Hurrah!
On the other hand this article appeared in the same edition. The reporter spoke of a fund raiser for a “pay as you can” restaurant that opened in El Paso eleven months ago. Patrons pay a “suggested price” if they can afford it. Otherwise they can eat for free. Some patrons volunteer their time in exchange for the meal.
Wanting to help support the restaurant I read the article twice looking for mention of the restaurant’s location. Evidently the press release the reporter was given did not mention the location.
Who, what, when, why, and how are essential elements to reporting a story.
Hope
We should hope that this new reporter can help raise the bar at the Times.
This was better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Um, ah, Brutus, dude. Way back when I took journalism, the key elements to a news story were who, what, where, and when. Why or how leave the door open for personal opinion and there is absolutely no ‘me’ in any news story. So, yes, that story lacked the where element.
LikeLike
I sit corrected 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t surrender so quickly. I don’t where Mr. D studied journalism, but he got shorted on the W’s. Good leads in news stories should absolutely include who, what, when, where and why, and even how, if appropriate. The caveat, however, is that none of the information should be the reporter’s opinion or judgment. If any of those things are not absolute facts, they should be attributed to a source or qualified as such.
The standards of good reporting shouldn’t be compromised simply because some reporters don’t know (or even care) about what qualifies as a fact versus an opinion.
On the subject of opinions, in Sunday’s edition of the Times Ramon Renteria whined about being insulted by the name-calling of readers who don’t agree with him or like what he writes. Now he knows how 74% of El Pasoans feel when they read the Times.
Ramon might want to discuss bigotry and mean-spiritedness with Joe Muench, who disparages people on a regular basis with labels like “crazies.” I’m sure Joe would say it’s all in good fun. That’s the same excuse used by bullies.
LikeLike
Renteria and Muench, pair of alimentary canals.
LikeLike
If only it were as easy as adding one reporter. Just when you thought the Times might be taking the matter of credibility seriously, they publish an article like the Sunday piece about the tuberculosis problem at Sierra Providence. It read as if it might have been co-authored by the Tenet public relations staff. The headline and first sentence alone were filled with large scoops of unsubstantiated, subjective praise designed to help burnish SP’s image.
“Tuberculosis scare jars Sierra Providence Health Network’s good reputation”
“The Sierra Providence Health Network has become El Paso’s largest hospital operator and has built an image of being a quality health care provider and good corporate citizen.”
Good reputation? Quality health care provider? Good corporate citizen?
The Times must be getting concerned about possibly losing Tenet advertising dollars.
LikeLike