Death Of Journalism Of Death

A particularly sports journalist- Richard Durrett of ESPN- died the other day. As I'd never heard of him, I don't know why I clicked on the link to the first article I saw except that I imagined he was likely an old veteran who'd covered a lot of the big stories over the years, or at least those pertaining to Dallas, where he operated. I found instead that he was 38, and with widened eyes, I read on to learn what cause of death claimed him so young.

The article did not say, though it went on for nine paragraphs. Now, if you don't know why, you don't know, but it seems logical to me that you would say at some point that a cause of death was not established or announced immediately (or, as they would have said before the internet, 'as of press time'). I don't happen to think it's ever reasonable to ignore the cause of death, but it is least excusable when someone relatively young dies. I can guess for myself why an 85 year-old might have died, but a 38 year-old demands explanation.

The Kind Journalism

I have for some time been very fond of pole dancing. I've even done a little bit myself, although in that regard I remain entirely a novice. As a fan, I've gotten somewhat familiar with the art and the sport of it. It's such an impressive feat of athletics and artistic expression that I'm badly frustrated by those who mistake it for stripping or anything of the kind. It's an amazing thing to see, and those who do it are incredible human beings.

Still, it is poorly understood by most and commonly derided in mainstream media. I figured this would hold true when I laid eyes on a pole dancing profile on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The stipple portrait showed a dancer stretching. The continuation of the article showed the same dancer performing in a color photograph (thus proving how times have changed at the staid journal of record for matters financial).

Hometown Paper

I was recently, as I have noted, back home with my family for the holidays. I lately touched on my interest in the obituaries, but don't take me to be a purely morbid person. That section is just one of many which hold my interest. The paper that I see at that time is the preeminent one in the state of Arizona, the 'Republic'. My mother worked there at one time, and it was a vibrant, indispensable staple of the community. It's hardly at its high water mark now, but remains viable at least for local coverage if one properly accounts for editorial bias of the sort which affects all papers run by humans.

They don't write their own national or international stories if anyone else has written ones which may be licensed. Generally those sections are taken up largely by wire service articles, which are serviceable but do not cause civic-minded locals to swell up with pride at the achievements of their journalistic institutions. The in-house writing is adequate, being most evident in the probably more profitable sections of the paper. The locals news section is an example of this, as is the sports section. If they didn't write about the local teams, who would? The national media takes little interest.