This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: Dear Beaconites --
As the Beacon grows, so do people's expectations of us. This is good. We hold ourselves to the highest journalistic standards, and we're glad you expect no less.
But inevitably, we make choices that disappoint some people. Why didn't you cover this, they ask? Why did you miss that angle? This week, complaints arose on several fronts.
Some of the loudest came in response to the Beacon's assessment of the legacy of Saint Louis University President Lawrence Biondi, who announced last month that he would step down. Great with buildings, bad with people, several sources told Beacon reporter Dale Singer. But when we posted Dale's story, that conclusion drew a sharp rebuke from some. SLU destroyed the neighborhood to save it, they contended. In comments on Twitter, Facebook and the story itself, these critics said the Beacon had perpetuated a myth – and a harmful one, at that.
Historic preservationists were not the only readers we disappointed this week. One loyal friend of the Beacon wished we'd reported on the Solar Impulse, the experimental plane that flew here from Texas. Another said we'd failed to report sufficiently on the dangers of two landfill problems -- an underground fire in the Bridgeton Landfill and low level radioactive waste in the West Lake Landfill.
I could go on at length about the reasons behind our coverage choices. If you were to sit with me in Beacon headquarters, you'd realize that we spend much of each day talking about what to cover and how to cover it Conversations among editors and between reporters and editors amount to an all-day, everyday exercise in setting priorities.
News judgment is a complicated calculus. We weigh such disparate factors as a story's potential impact, its distinctiveness, our expertise and the effort we've already invested in covering the topic -- not to mention how much it might touch our hearts or change our understanding of the world.
It boils down to this: We aim to report news that matters, but we don't have the resources to report it all. And so, we focus on what seems most significant, with special attention to providing what other news organizations are not, emphasizing depth and context not available elsewhere and shining a light on stories that otherwise might remain in the shadows.
This week, for example, we passed on landfill coverage in part because we knew that others have already been covering these issues. They got renewed attention recently because of cleanup developments. Also, a recent article in Rolling Stone article, headlined "St. Louis Is Burning," has contributed to a new sense of alarm. I'd like for the Beacon to get to the bottom of key questions, especially how dangerous the situations actually are. But this will take considerable effort and other priorities are taking precedence for now.
We intend to follow up soon on the question of how universities shape their neighborhoods and on the historic preservation questions that arise.
As for the Solar Impulse, we had made plans for a freelancer to cover the arrival. But recent storms wreaked havoc with his home, and this assignment became collateral damage.
You may disagree with some of our news judgments. But I hope you'll agree that the choices can be tough and that we give them careful consideration. We also hope you'll let us know when you disagree – or agree – with the news judgments we make as we continue to explore ways to make our work more valuable to you.
Sincerely,
Margie