exploring the nitty gritty inner core of this beautiful (and bootylicious) world requires a keen eye for observation of the minutest details and a sense of literary flair and creative endeavor. you have to capture that mystery of history (and for that you will have to go to the history of mystery). even if you think you have nothing to say remember it might be a knot-thing…in other words untie the know of writer’s block and lose yourself in your natural birthright which is free expression of the human personality.

But, as a regular Washington Post reader, I feel like if anything the news media seems to be giving up regular beat reporting in favor of “news analysis” pieces. I wouldn’t mind seeing more “here’s what happened yesterday” (or this morning) news in the newspaper, myself, and a little less of the “here’s what we think about what happened yesterday.” As a reader, I feel like I’m being thrown into the story without enough context of the actual events or people who are making up the news. To wit, how many stories did you see on the media’s projections of what conservatives are going to do to try to capsize the Sotomayor nomination? Too many, in my opinion.

Do daily newspaper writers and editors think I’m getting the more nitty-gritty news elsewhere — local free weekly newspapers, or the six o’clock local news, or special-interest publications? Because I’m not, and I often feel afloat in a sea of other peoples’ opinions, which even if they are well-informed don’t help me figure out what the real news is. Also, given the state of who writes and edits (and owns) daily newspapers, it often gives me a sense of what overeducated white guys think the news means to them, which I can charitably call a limited perspective.

As a reader of news, I find appealing the kind of news article writing you describe. But I wonder if the general reader would agree.

You say that the public craves more analysis and context, and more judgments by the reporter – is that a gut feeling or do you have something more concrete to base that on?

Similarly, do you have tangible reasons to support your contention that the public wants reporters to advocate for basic values, and to express outrage at, among other things, torture?

I reiterate that my questions are not personal (since I have no personal problem with what you say); they go to the question of whether we have reasonably solid evidence that the general audience will agree as well.

Especially like this part: “I would also argue that the notion that by hiding our voices we are maintaining political neutrality is a fig leaf. Much of what we do is inevitably political; choosing what we write about, who we quote, what ideas we take seriously and which we disdain and ignore.”

Whenever human beings are involved, there is bias, opinion, slant. We bring our own baggage — view of life, experiences to everything. We can’t help that. We’re not robots (Thankfully!)

I think you’re right that the best way to handle that is to be upfront about it, analyze — not pretend that presenting two sides as equal that aren’t equal is objectivity. Most stories have more than two sides, and often one is stronger than others.

Presenting the unequal as equal isn’t objectivity, to me, it’s abandoning a journalist’s role to make sense of the world for readers. And that role that’s becoming increasingly important in the new media world.