BlowhornsRUs is having its second recall of blowhorns this month. Because of this a more attractive choice for your blowhorn needs may be BlowHorn city.
And yet, isn't that exactly the kind of information – if accurate – that community members would benefit from?
At this point, I again suggest reading What the Public Expects of Local News. In brief, some see news outlets simply as places to find facts. Others - and it tends to be the majority - expect them them to act as a trusted advisor; to make expert judgements, to have measured opinions, and to offer solutions to the community's problems.
I support the publication of the latter kind of article here, but they could always be done better. Unfortunately as the person who has to decide whether to publish something or ask for further revisions, there is a limit to my own knowledge. In particular, I can say "why didn't you say anything bad about X", but I don't know if there actually is something bad – and I wouldn't want submitters to dig and dig just to try to "balance" the article. If X is really better than Y in some way, the article should say so. The question is at what point we draw the line and say "this is an opinion piece", and how to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. The word 'Analysis' in the title was intended to hint that there'll be some kind of reasoned conclusion at the end.
Yes, organizations can change, and it is obnoxious to harp on past problems if those problems are resolved. It's especially poor form to bring up old bones when they achieve something concrete ("sure, they fixed a bug this time, but last time they didn't"). However saying "they haven't done A when they said they would, and they didn't do it last time either, so consider using provider Y instead until they do" . . . that seems reasonable if you also mention Y's shortcomings in that area, if any.
(I would note that this article does not make such a recommendation. Be careful not to do the very thing you're complaining about and judge an author's current articles based on past ones. We're all learning, here.)
And yet, isn't that exactly the kind of information – if accurate – that community members would benefit from?
At this point, I again suggest reading What the Public Expects of Local News. In brief, some see news outlets simply as places to find facts. Others - and it tends to be the majority - expect them them to act as a trusted advisor; to make expert judgements, to have measured opinions, and to offer solutions to the community's problems.
I support the publication of the latter kind of article here, but they could always be done better. Unfortunately as the person who has to decide whether to publish something or ask for further revisions, there is a limit to my own knowledge. In particular, I can say "why didn't you say anything bad about X", but I don't know if there actually is something bad – and I wouldn't want submitters to dig and dig just to try to "balance" the article. If X is really better than Y in some way, the article should say so. The question is at what point we draw the line and say "this is an opinion piece", and how to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. The word 'Analysis' in the title was intended to hint that there'll be some kind of reasoned conclusion at the end.
Yes, organizations can change, and it is obnoxious to harp on past problems if those problems are resolved. It's especially poor form to bring up old bones when they achieve something concrete ("sure, they fixed a bug this time, but last time they didn't"). However saying "they haven't done A when they said they would, and they didn't do it last time either, so consider using provider Y instead until they do" . . . that seems reasonable if you also mention Y's shortcomings in that area, if any.
(I would note that this article does not make such a recommendation. Be careful not to do the very thing you're complaining about and judge an author's current articles based on past ones. We're all learning, here.)