Q. Can someone explain the thought behind today’s (11/5/08) headline? Is there some clever wording or profound innuendo that I’ve missed? Obama Rolls??? I take it to mean the votes rolled in for him, across the country. If that’s correct, then what a disappointing, tepid, weak headline for one of the most significant and momentous events of our country’s history.

This is not only a front page, but a keepsake; the layperson’s own, little piece of history to hold on to and show their grandchildren. Did you not have enough time in the past 18 months to come up with something better to embody the spirit of this election? There are no re-dos on this one and unfortunately this headline fell flat.

Amy W.

A. I’m sorry you were disappointed by our headline. We considered a variety of options last evening and felt we had selected a very good one. Your reading of it was correct — the votes rolled in for Obama, starting in the East and spreading widely out to the West. As the underline stated, “Democrat dominates coast to coast in historic election.”

At least one other paper, the Denver Post, used the same headline on the front page in its Wednesday edition.

The circulation department reports that our sales at retail outlets and the newspaper racks were quite brisk, so I think the headline and dramatic photo captured the attention of a lot of readers.

Q. I can’t believe that the media is ignoring the most significant event since the bombing of Hiroshima! In six days, the Large Hadron Collider will be activated (Sept. 10) and not a peep out of the media. The LHC has been featured in Scientific American and National Geographic magazines. It is not just WEB hype. What gives? Fear of triggering a global panic? Waiting until after the event to see if it’s a bust? Inability to understand the implications and applications if it is successful? Isn’t it the duty of the media to keep us informed?

Candy Frankel
Spokane

A. We published a story in Monday’s newspaper about the atom smasher on Page A3. This reader’s question was submitted last week and I asked our wire editors to keep an eye out for any stories previewing the event.

Q. Why don’t you publish the voting records of those we are being asked to vote for, from state to national? You publish things of limited interest - why not something of interest to most citizens?

Shirley Jensen

A. We do publish voting records on major issues. But we seldom go beyond major legislation, for various reasons.

From a practical standpoint, it would be impossible to publish every vote taken, largely because lawmakers cast thousands of votes each year. And, most of those are for non-controversial “housekeeping” issues such as reauthorizing existing programs, routine budget adjustments, and minor technical corrections in state laws covering everything from use of barley straw in pond water to establishing commute-trip reduction goals for state agencies.

Additionally, most of the committee and subcommittee votes are taken audibly (yeas vs. nays), so no roll call breakouts even exist — just notations on whether bills (or proposed amendments) were passed out of committee or killed.

When we do include a how-they-voted box, it generally is published alongside the story. We will continue to do that as major issues arise.

My understanding is that the SR used to subscribe to a service that compiled controversial and semi-conroversial congressional legislation each week, along with a breakout on how the Northwest delegation voted. But we no longer subscribe to that service, and with our newspaper getting smaller I’m unconvinced it’s the best use of ever-more limited space.

But several resources are available to voters who want more information about any legislation, including any roll call votes that may have been taken.

In Washington, the Legislature’s website is http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature, the legislative hotline is 800-562-6000.

In Idaho, the Legislature’s website is http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/, the legislative hotline is 800-626-0471.

Nationally, legislation and voting records for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate can be found on the Library of Congress’ web site at http://thomas.loc.gov/.

Q: What happened to the Krauthammer editorials?

I realize it was a trial, but it seems that conservative opinion is woefully lacking in your OP-ED page. Off the top of my head I can count Barone and Sowell as consistent contributors to this page. While Pitts, Broder, Estrich, Sheerer, Haarop, and more as well as your several staff opinion writers grace your pages daily with a liberal bent. The same applies to the political cartoonists. Only Ramirez truly represents a consistently conservative viewpoint. I won’t even begin to mention writers in the Values section, 7, and the outdoors editor.

Eastern Washington is probably the most conservative area in this state yet liberal and ultra liberal views get ample airing daily in the SR. Were I new to this part of the state I might think that liberals make up the majority of this region. I believe in freedom of the press. All I am asking for is a fair and equal airing of the other side of the coin. What the SR does is suppress, ignore and manipulate the news and opinion. How? Let’s start with the fact that a vast majority of journalists are liberal/ultra liberal. From that fact it is easy to see how journalist project their worldview into their content. When criticized, they poll their peers, only to

find that they are, ta-dah, correct in their view. Since all their
peers think like them, they get a distorted sense of the real world around them as their views are constantly reinforced by their environment.

As for letters to the editor, I note the same readers/contributors with their strident and shrill liberal causes. Personally, the moment I see the “Bush Lied…,” or the “Cheney, Halliburton”, “Twin Towers conspiracy” themes served up for the umpteenth time, I move on to the next piece. This usually makes for a quick “read” of the paper and a vow to cancel my subscription the next time it’s up for renewal. And I probably will this time.

I realize the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I can only deduce that the Krauthhammer experiment was met by a loud but small number of liberal lefties who objected to this man’s intellect. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that those who defend the First Amendment so stridently are so determined in their efforts to squelch an opinion different from their own. I believe you have abdicated your responsibility to provide opinion balance to a vocal minority of readers by letting “us” decide for you what you know you should have done.

— Chris Mangini

A: Charles Krauthammer is one of several syndicated columnists, both liberal and conservative, who have been published on a trial basis in recent weeks. As has been mentioned before, the idea was to engage in several such test runs (there will be more to follow) and make some decisions toward the end of the year. At that time there probably will be some additions and some terminations. Conservative Charles Krauthammer is still in the running. For that matter, so is liberal Amy Goodman.

I note in your assessment of current columnists, you list David S. Broder and Froma Harrop as liberals. I see them as mostly centrist, drifting modestly to the left at times. You did not mention either Cal Thomas or Kathleen Parker, two decidedly conservative commentators, or Jonah Goldberg, whose conservative perspectives we sometimes run. Likewise, in your tabulation of our cartoonists, you overlooked conservatives Scott Stantis and Glenn McCoy.

As for the selection of letters, the mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints is what it is. We can’t print what we don’t receive.

I hope these comments have been responsive to your questions. If you get a chance, though, perhaps you would respond to a question from me: What is the source of your assertion “that a vast majority of journalists are liberal/ultra liberal.”?

Q: First a headline of “Biden has substance and style”… Do you plan to run an ad on the front page—Vote for Obama?

—Cal Modisett

A: Since we had the choice of Biden in Saturday’s paper, the intent was to find a story that dealt more with exactly what qualities led Obama to bring him aboard. The story is all about that – that Biden is one of the most senior and highly regarded members of the Senate with an expertise in foreign affairs and national security matters. That assertion was unchallenged anywhere in the story (and in stories that I’ve read since). In the fact box that ran with the jump, McCain calls Biden a “wise selection.”

The use of “style” in the headline is taken from the third graph of the story: “What separates Biden from the Senate pack, though, is not his resume, it’s his style.” The reporters go on to explain at some length Biden’s memorable gaffes and the discerning reader can infer that “style” is not necessarily an attribute in a candidate for national office. If the headline had focused on the negative fallout from Biden’s gaffes, no doubt there would have been callers upset over our Republican bias.

Ironically, some of the most virulent and persistent criticism of Obama has been that he is all style and little substance. Early in the current campaign, in fact, presidential candidate Biden deemed his young rival from Illinois “not yet ready” to be president.

So the “nut graph”/point of the story is that Obama chose someone with demonstrably more substance in certain areas (foreign policy, national security) and with a different style. Thus, I would posit that the headline accurately reflected the content and tone of the story over which it appeared.

In retrospect, the story probably should have carried an “analysis” tag.

Nonetheless, the selection of Biden was the only news of note on a pre-convention weekend coverage that even Dick Cheney would cede to the Democrats. McCain and th4 Republicans get their turn next week in Minnesota.

—Bertil Peterson, news editor

Q. Will the Spokesman be doing an article on the oil companies exportation of oil to other countries? I just read a Forbes.com article titled “Analysis-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar”. The U.S. oil industry is shipping record amounts to other countries while asking for permission to drill more, so that they can export more.

K. Howard

A. The issue of U.S. oil exports is not one that we’re likely to tackle with our reporting resources. It’s certainly an interesting and important angle, but we have to count on the news services we subscribe to for this kind of national and international coverage.

I’ve included a link to the Reuters story that you saw on Forbes.com so that other readers of this column can see it for themselves. We don’t subscribe to the Reuters news service, but we’ll look for similar stories that might be provided by Associated Press or the Los Angeles Times/Washington News Service.

As I reviewed our electronic archives today, I noticed that we’ve certainly published stories in the past that have mentioned the U.S. oil exports, but we’ve not done anything prominent with the issue lately.

Q. Just wanted to pass on to you that after a five- hour marathon on CSPAN discussing the impeachment of GW Bush, I was appalled not to see one mention of this in the press. I personally, as did my neighbors, thought that the points brought up on this program were pertinent and timely for our country. I personally was most disturbed by the civil rights issues.

It seems to me that if I gave birth to a rabbit tomorrow I would probably get international press. Why can’t we discuss what’s happening in this country? Please answer.

Pat

A. We have received a couple of inquiries from readers wanting to know why we haven’t done more with the impeachment issue.

We published a lengthy Associated Press story in Thursday’s newspaper, reporting that the House has voted to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to a committee that is not likely to hold hearings before the end of the term.

While the House floor debate may have been interesting, it’s pretty clear that the impeachment measure has little chance of moving foward. Nancy Pelosi, a leading Democrat and the Speaker of the House, has declared the prospects for impeachment hearings “off the table.”

As our editors decide each day on which stories they publish, they weigh their importance, the seriousness of the issues and the likelihood that the story will gather momentum or sustain a reasonable level of consideration. Reading the signals of various Congressional leaders, it would appear the impeachment story is going to die a quiet death.

As I noted, we didn’t ignore the House debate. But until there’s significant movement in the House, we’re not likely to publish much more about prospects for impeachment.

Question: Wonder why the Spokesman-Review didn’t consider running the Pro&Con editorials about the STA and CrimeCheck ballot issues side by side in today and yesterday editions. I know as a long time reader that the Spokesman-Review has done this similarly with syndicated columnists. The readership I believe would have been better served in this type of format.

—Mark

Answer: Thanks for your feedback. The decision was influenced largely by layout considerations. Putting the columns side by side would have crowded out too many letters to the editor, in our judgment. To make sure readers understood the pro & con balance intended by our presentation, we made it a point to include information boxes explaining the publication schedule. Unfortunately, that box was removed by mistake with the first column on the STA proposal. Next time we go through this, however, we’ll reconsider your suggestion. Thanks for sharing it.

—Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Question: At the suggestion of Becky Nappi, below is my disappointment and concern about the Spokesman’s lack of coverage of the return of our Spokane Battery P Marines on Sunday. How could this happen - where is your military network? How could these brave men not even be mentioned in our only newspaper? And further - what will you do to make sure an event like this is not overlooked in the future? It is not too late to print SOMETHING!! Please advise when that will happen.

A loyal reader,

Mary Henry Cameron

Answer: We’ve had two inquiries from readers about this. Unfortunately, we received no advance notice about the return of the unit.

“We wish we had known of the event - we almost surely would have covered it,” reports City Editor Addy Hatch. “But after seeing it on TV ourselves Sunday, we looked back through the faxes and e-mails and determined that we did not receive any notification whatsoever. I have a note on my desk to connect with someone at the reserve center to find out why we aren’t on their media notification list.”

Unlike the Fairchild Air Force Base, the reserve units usually don’t have a fully-functioning public relations staff, so they are not quite as dependable in getting the word out to all media outlets.

The event is now almost a week old, so we are not planning a story.

Question: I couldn’t find this story (about the CIA interrogation tactics) in the S-R. Did I miss it? Or did you choose not to print it?

— Judy Butler

Answer: We published a short version of the Washington Post story about the tactics in the April 12 edition. That was the same week that Congress was holding hearings on the war in Iraq, so we devoted much more of our news space to the hearings instead of the interrogation issue.

Here’s what we published:

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post
CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush said Friday (April 11) that he was aware his top national security advisers had discussed the details of harsh interrogation tactics to be used on detainees.

Bush also said in an interview with ABC News that he approved of the meetings, which were held as the CIA began to prepare for a secret interrogation program that included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and other coercive techniques.

“Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people” by learning what various detainees knew, Bush said in the interview at the presidential ranch here. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

The remarks underscore the extent to which the top officials were directly involved in setting the controversial interrogation policies.

Bush suggested in the interview that no one should be surprised that his senior advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney, would discuss details of the interrogation program. “I told the country we did that,” Bush said. “And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.”

The Washington Post first reported in January 2005 that proposed CIA interrogation techniques were discussed at several White House meetings.

The Post reported that the attendees at one or more of these sessions included then-presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, then-Defense Department general counsel William Haynes II, then-National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger III, CIA counsel John Rizzo, and David Addington, then-counsel to Cheney.

Question: I did not know whether to laugh or wonder if you are testing your readers’ IQ. Scott Maben’s last sentence [Northwest, Friday, April 4, 2008, front page] “But the boy vanished before police could ketchup with him.” I thought ketchup was something that went on hamburgers. Just in case you are not smarter than a third grader, the police activity would be to “catch up” with him.

—Carol Vines, Spokane

Answer: The misspelling was entirely intentional. We have a sense of humor and I couldn’t resist throwing a few puns into this brief news item. It’s about a giant wiener on wheels, after all. That’s funny stuff. I squeezed in references to ketchup, mustard and relish, but I held the onions. We have some taste.

— Scott Maben, Deputy City Editor

Question: To the editors: I’m sure I’m not the only one who was offended by the letter to the editor labeling an abortion-rights stance as schizophrenia. The term was used several times, apparently as a substitute for split personality. My issue isn’t with the pro-life opinion, but with the incorrect use of the term schizophrenia. This is truly a heart-breaking disease which afflicts many people, and to use it so casually referring to something completely unrelated was hurtful and unnecessary. Try substituting the word retarded, which was also used quite easily in the past, and you might see my point.
—Sue Haynes

Answer: Thank you for your frank feedback. You expressed very clearly a dilemma that arises frequently on the letters page, which is intended to be a forum that reflects the kind of conversation that is taking place in the community. That conversation, unfortunately perhaps, often adopts word usage that may trigger unintended sensitivities. To many, for example, the cliche “spends like a drunken sailor” is just an overworked phrase, but some of those who have served in the Navy take offense. The letter you have pointed out offers another example. In our handling of letters to the editor, we have to make an admittedly subjective decision about when this kind of situation is so egregious as to warrant withholding a letter or deleting a phrase. No doubt many people would have different ideas about where to draw that line. Since our mission is to promote broad discussion of public issues, we are probably more reluctant to sanitize the discussion than others might be. It’s not that we relish causing some readers personal discomfort, but we believe it is sometimes unavoidable within the open discussion that is necessary for democracy to succeed. Regards,

—Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Question: Please tell me I’m not the only one who noticed the front page of the Today section yesterday (Tuesday, Jan. 22). Does anyone ever actually look at the page before it gets printed?

The feature article (Slice not withstanding) is about getting women to accept their image. The banner ad on the bottom is about Botox, microdermabrasion, facial peels and varicose vein removal. What is the message here? — Ann Elliott

Answer: There’s no question the story and ad on Tuesday created a nice bit of irony. And it might lead readers to conclude that the newsroom and advertising department have absolutely no clue what the other is doing.

And actually, that conclusion is pretty much correct.

We do not pull or adjust news content in order to make it mesh with advertising. That’s a firm, etched-in-stone policy. If we didn’t have that policy, it could open the door to a situation in which we might, for example, pull a story about automotive recalls because we had an ad for a car dealership on the same page.

So this is a case where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. And we intend to keep it that way.

Question: Your sub-headline on Friday, Jan. 11 “experts see region escaping full force of recession” is grossly irresponsible. We’re in a recession??????

How could the editors of the S-R allow such a blatantly false and undocumented piece of opinionated drivel pass off as OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM?! You state that periods of “economic decline” specifically, the years 2000 and 2001 resulted in the U.S. “wobbling” in and out depression.

There is no doubt many will blame the current administration for this “wobbling”, but before they do, let’s look at facts. During the 1990’s, the administration at that time rode the coattails and enjoyed the benefits of “Reaganomics”. In 1994, that same administration, against federal law, granted China ‘most favored nation’ status thus increasing our trade deficit exponentially. Also, that same administration pushed N.A.F.T.A through as if it were a good thing…remember that “giant sucking sound” of jobs going south????

Finally, in the early 2000’s, we’ve had irresponsible lenders and borrowers to lead us in the current mortgage mess. That said, for the S-R to shout on page one that we’re in a recession is so professionally miscreant, I can only assume you’re on drugs. Sober up and seek help.

—Mark Dana, Colburn, Idaho

Answer: I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of our headline and story about the economy that appeared in Friday’s newspaper.

The main headline read, “Area economists hopeful” with a subhead that read, “Experts see region escaping full force of recession.”

Headlines by nature have to be short and succinct. While you assume the headline writer concluded that we’re in a recession, other readers understood that the headline refers to a potential recession. The story makes it abundantly clear that the economists we quoted talked specifically about the ‘possibility’ of a recession.

We count on intelligent readers to do more than just read the headlines. Those who read Bert Caldwell’s story carefully could easily understand that the economists we quoted neither assumed or claimed we are in a recession at this moment.

We even quoted one expert as saying, “Use the word recession with a grain of salt. You can’t say it’s now. You can only say it was.”

—Gary Graham, managing editor

Question: I read and reread the story about the Bonagofski family. Unless I missed the reason for the story to have made the front page of the Sunday 12/30/07 paper, I was left with the question why this story made the front page?

I read the story thinking it was going to invoke compassion for this family and their struggles, it left me with complete opposite feelings. Sincerely,

—Abra Oakes

Answer: The Dec. 30 story on the Bonagofski family was part of a series titled “Whatever Happened To.” Over the course of a week between Christmas and New Year’s, the newspaper updated stories that made a significant impact on our community in 2007. The Bonagofski story was one of those that generated a lot of reader reaction the first time it appeared in April as part of our special Our Kids: Our Business project. We wanted to update the family’s situation for readers. Their story is a complicated one that evokes different reactions from different people. Our intent - as with all of the “Whatever Happened To” stories - was to provide new information and to acknowledge that sometimes stories stick with readers long after the newspaper has moved on.

—Carla Savalli, Senior editor for local news

Question: I have been a loyal S-R reader since I immigrated (LEGALLY— FROM UTAH) to the Inland Empire in 1974 and I have watched as some good decisions and some very bad decisions were made at the S-R paper. I have watched and read as this local paper has diminished from investigative and factual reporting to a 13-page business advertisement paper with little regard to what news they are printing, which is usually taken one or two days off the television news….

However, my question is: How come the “B” section of your paper has been done away with. I have always thought that this section was the best since it had local news and opinions on local affairs. My suggestion to your editors is that you should get out of the office and talk to people to see what you can do to return your publication to a quality one.

Thank you for your past efforts and good luck in your future ones..(You are going to need it)

—T.R. Potter

Answer: The Northwest or ‘B’ section of The Spokesman-Review still exists. You may have picked up a recent holiday paper or a Monday paper. Monday is the only day of the week in which we regularly combine the A-section and the B-section because of advertising and space issues. We will also combine sections for some holiday papers for the same logistical reasons. Beyond that, our Northwest section continues to include local news from Eastern Washington and North Idaho plus the strongest wire stories from throughout the region.

—Carla Savalli, Senior editor for local news

Question: I would like to know why I open the paper this Saturday Morning to find on A6 That (US death in Iraq decline this month). Maybe this is a little more important than Christmas Bureau meeting record setting demand. It nice to see where my soon to be xpaper stands. The death toll going down no matter what your feelings on the war is a good thing and more good stories should be told. Not just the head line grabbing bad ones.

—jvanos@_____, Spokane

Answer: I apologize for the delay in responding to your note about the story published December 15. We’ve published several prominent stories this year about the steady decline in violent deaths in Iraq. The stories have not always made the front page, but we have certainly carried stories about the progress in Iraq. However, I want to note that Iraq is still a very difficult place in which to live and work. For the fifth straight year, Iraq was the deadliest country in the world for the press. Thirty-one journalists lost their lives this year while covering the story in Iraq.

As for placing the Christmas Bureau story on the front page, I’ll make no apologies. The fund raised nearly $500,000 this year to assist the needy. More than 32,000 people representing 10,000 families received gifts that they otherwise would not have had. That’s important news for a community whose poor struggle each and every day.

—Gary Graham, managing editor

Question: I’m writing to express my concern with a particular cartoon that captures the first spot in the Sunday comics. Our daughter at three is interested to know about what is going on with the characters. I enjoy reading them to her and will screen out cartoons that are beyond her years. What does bother me are the depictions in Opus which I am my family find offensive. A few examples that I can think of off hand include tattoos, cigarette smoking, obnoxiously portrayed clevage and protruding butt cracks. While I find the subject matter would be inappropriate for older children who can read, as we are not yet to that point, it is the more visually offensive aspects of the comic that I believe to be inappropriate for children.

What I would ask is why not section off the comics with an adult audience so that children can have a more family friendly version of the comics. — Tim Lovell

Answer: That’s an interesting question, one that’s not come up before.

I think the problem would be deciding which comics are “family friendly” and which are not. How can you determine whether a comic strip will always and forever be appropriate for a 3-year-old? Even “the Family Circus” deals with issues, such as death, that a very young child may not be ready for. Some parents may not want their kids to see Garfield kick Odie off the table, or see Lucy pull Charlie Brown’s football away.

The newspaper - including the comics page - is edited for adults with respect for reasonable community standards. I love that you are introducing your child to the newspaper, but I can’t decide for you what content is or isn’t appropriate for her. You are the best person to make those decisions, and it sounds like you’re doing just fine without my help.

Question:Three weeks ago, the SR carried an AP report that Bishop Skylstad, of Spokane, was stepping down from his position as President of the Bishop’s Conference. The New York Times reported this briefly but also noted- in one little dialog box of National Events- that that Skylstad had authored issued a statement calling for a moral and bipartisan approach to the Iraq War, inlcuding that the US allow more Iraqis refuge. Seems the SR missed it.

In yesterday’s NYT another story from Spokane- the cops settled a 1st amendment lawsuit by agreeing to take the cross off the chaplains’ badges.
No story yesterday or today. But there is timely coverage today of “Dog’s Death Leads to Policy Review,” and “Cat Rescued from Burning Coeur D’Alene Fourplex.” Tomorrow? “Three Legged Dog Looking for Man Who Shot His Paw?”

I’m sure many other readers also would like to see more significant coverage of locally connected issues.

Sincerely

—James A. Burke, Spokane, Wash.

Answer: Mr. Burke, Thank you for your question to The Spokesman-Review. On Nov. 14 we published on page A4 an Associated Press story about Cardinal Francis George, who has replaced Bishop William Skylstad as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops. Included in that story was the following paragraph: “Public policy issues, from war to politics, are part of the agenda of this week’s event. Skylstad released a statement Tuesday calling conditions in Iraq “unacceptable.” He stressed the need for a bipartisan “responsible transition” out of the country.”

The story about the out-of-court settlement between the city of Spokane and Ray Ideus, a former Lutheran pastor-turned-atheist, was actually published in The Spokesman-Review on Wednesday (Dec. 5), a full day before it appeared in The New York Times. Our story, by reporter Karen Dorn Steele, was on page A1. We first reported the controversy over the police chaplain badges in March of this year, and to my knowledge it has been ours exclusively. I’m guessing the AP picked up our story and made it available to other papers like The New York Times.

—Carla Savalli, Senior Editor for Local News

Question: Mr. Editor; I am writing you because I have not seen the next episode of the “Brothers in Arms” story. I find that the story has come to an abrupt halt after Robert Shipp has been deployed on a Navy ship for Afghanistan. He has also gotten married and has many supporters in North Idaho and in our country.

Let me give you a little history. I am his father in law and am very proud of his respect of our country and his service to protect our lives. He not only has that responsibility but is charged with the protection of my daughter and their lives together.

I have met Roberts’s parents and family and see why Brian has taken this story on. These two brothers are doing for our country what many only take for granted. This young man is very devoted to his wife, parents, sister and brothers. He also is a Marine and is being followed by many people in our community. I would like to see the story to the conclusion of their service to our country and to their family. I want our community to hear and see what the two young men are doing for our country and YOUR freedom in this country.

You are not the only person that reads YOUR paper. Some of the people that read the paper are looking for what is good about our YOUNG military men and women. These two young men are twins with many qualities that we need to educate our community with. The love and respect for family, the honor of the Marines and the Commitment of yours and my safety in our country.

If you chose not to run the story to its end, I feel you are doing the LCpl Shipp, R and his wife, Dusty Shipp a disservice. Not only are we a part of this family, we are a part of this community and would expect the whole story to be printed, shown and followed up on.

—Terry Smith

Answer: Mr. Smith - Thank you for your question to The Spokesman-Review. Let me assure you that we understand very well the importance of the “Brothers in Arms” series. It’s a body of work that we’re very proud of here at the newspaper.

For a newsroom to make such an ongoing commitment to any single story is fairly unusual because the pace of breaking news is relentless. To tell stories and take photographs like those in this series takes a lot of time to do well. I’m quite certain you’re proud of the series not just because you are Robert Shipp’s father-in-law, but because you feel the stories have been authentic, balanced, fair and full of the spirit of these two young men. That kind of journalism is not easy to do.

We have not abandoned this series, but we are facing some unusual challenges. After the last story ran in October, the newsroom was forced to lay off a considerable number of its staff in the face of companywide budget cutbacks. Among those laid off was Jim Hagengruber, the reporter on this series. Let me be clear about one fact: The layoffs were seniority-based, per union contract. The layoffs had nothing to do with performance.

In this particular case, Jim Hagengruber was and remains one of the best journalists I’ve ever worked with. The photographer for the series, Brian Plonka, is still with us. But these staffing challenges mean that we need to find a different way to tell this story.

It would be wrong to promise a date for the next installment, or even to suggest that any subsequent work we do on Matt and Robert will look like our previous stories. But we are well-aware that these stories have struck a chord for a number of readers and that, of course, is the goal for all that we do here.

What I can tell you is that we continue to monitor their progress and we continue to look for ways in which we can tell those stories to our readers.

— Carla Savalli, Senior editor for local news