Right here:
(For those who don't know, Glenn Reynolds is one of the most-read bloggers that, well, there is.)

And he's cut to the point: this is the sort of thing that the newspapers ought to be doing. The only local reporter who regularly covers this stuff is Demko, over at the City Pages; he's done a great job on the costs of the MPD brutality lawsuits, and nobody has come close to his coverage of the Duy Ngo case (and it's worth remembering that the triggerman in that instance was a SWAT doorkicker, who did duck any responsibility. I'm not criticizing Demko for being less prescriptive than I am in this series; that's not his style, although it is mine.

But other than him? It's pretty much silence, and that's not only wrong, but dangerous and expensive.

Wow, how many hits did you get today?

Well, lots. Not as many, yet, as the first time I got Instalanched; it crashed the Livejournal servers. (Then again, they do have more robust servers these days.)

You know, that is something I did not think about. That topic IS the type of reporting that new agencies should be doing. Gone are the days of hard hitting/don't take no for an answer type of reporting.

I have definately thought about the other side- The reporters that ask the tough questions, and that person says everything but anything that related to the question, and the reporter says "thank you for your time... very informative..." huh?

How is it that bloggers are now better reporters than actual reporters?

Well done Joel, well done.

Thanks. There's two answers to your question, I think:

1. Folks interested in specialized subjects can learn about them. No brag, just fact: I know more about self-defense law, police procedure, and related matters than pretty much all MSM journalists (and a fair number of lawyers; that's why Lorman wants me teaching cops and lawyers CLE classes on the stuff) because, by trade, I'm a broad-spectrum writer and learning stuff is what I do so that I can do my job. (It's as important, for reasons too long to go into, to learn stuff in order to write fiction as it is to write nonfiction.)

2. Most -- not all -- MSM journalists are deadline-bound.

(Then there's 3: too many are intellectually and otherwise lazy.)

Then too, conventional journalists want something for everybody; if you end all articles by saying, essentially,

"Good points were made, by everyone, it's something we all would do well to think about. A good time was had by all.....

then you can belong to the mutual admiration society......

It is amazing that we can break into the wrong homes with gunfire and nobody in the local media says anything except "it's a mistake..." If a private person made a similar mistake Geraldo would make it the story of the year nationwide.

You might be a little bit circumspect in your analysis, Dick, so I'll say it: MSM reporters don't want to piss off the cops whom they may need to talk to next week for help on a different story so they tiptoe around these kinds of stories.

Dealing with sources is difficult when you're doing journalism. One of my cop friends makes it very, very easy for me, as if he calls me up on something he doesn't want me going public with based solely on his say-so, he starts off by asking, "Can we go off the record?"

I once accidentally kindasorta burned a source accidentally. (I didn't get a corroborating source for something that wasn't explicitly given to me off the record.) He -- and if you're reading this, yes, I do say this stuff behind your back, too; sorry about the blushing, but . . . -- is one of the nicest folks I know: he didn't give me any grief at all about my clumsiness, which ended up causing him some serious inconvenience.

On the other hand, I still have Gross bite-marks in my ass; David was not restrained. (Nor, for that matter, should he have been.)

And if reporting is not your 'job' in the traditional sense of being an employee of a media outlet, it's way harder to get fired.