Friday, October 9, 2009

A post in which I use the word "important" a lot

I received an email from DN reporter Victor Tine explaining to me why certain information about the dredging/beach nourishment that I have cited as being important is not included in his reporting.

Since it was a long communication, he went ahead and sent it in an email as opposed to posting it as a comment.

As he always is, he was very nice and polite. (This isn't an endorsement, but James Shanley is also always very nice and polite when he writes about something I wrote on here that he thinks needs more "clarification.")

I'll say right here that I was assuming - "Never assume, Gillian" - that, like some of my stories, things got changed around and/or taken out. Editors, ya know? ... my mistake.

And there is reporting about Salisbury getting sand in any case that I must have missed.

Well ... as I have said many times, two or three or more people can go to the same meeting and come out with a different idea of what was important and what was not. And this is such a case.

Of course, what each individual thinks was important ... well, they thought that was important enought to pass on.

So he does not necessarily think that the things I think are important are that important and that's fine. It does not mean anything except what it is: a difference of opinion.

I never mean to imply, however, that what I think is important trumps what he (or any other reporter, anywhere) thinks is important. Except to me, of course, who does not get why no one else thinks what I think is important, is important. And to those who agree with me about what's important.

(I made that deliberately confusing.)

I remember my mother once saying that she read the former magazine Saturday Review because since she found that what it said was important was in fact important to her, so she trusted the other opinions expressed therein.

Which I guess explains FOX News.

So that's why we still need newspapers, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and news magazines and such. Because everyone does think different things are important. Even us reporters, who are left to decide what's important enough to include in our stories.

And wow, you know? If it was allowed, all us reporters should all have blogs. Sometimes I go back and read stuff I wrote in the paper and I'm like, "OMG!" Omge. And frequently I lie awake at night thinking about stuff I could have put it a piece that may have been more important.

All I have is Bubba to occasionally tell me on here that I've really lost it this time.

But you should read it all - yes, even the Daily News. And the Liberator and whatever else may pop up someday that is not relevant to this post.

Oh, good grief, I'm kidding. The DN does some excellent reporting; I just leave it to Tom Salemi to point it out.

No comments: