Wrong. This is where those who hate the press try to turn everything into "editorializing".
If you've never taken a journalism course, just say so. If you've never worked as a journalist, just say so.
NO, news articles are not "standard, dry, factual". That is not what is at play here, particularly when YOU ARE TWO YEARS LATE ON THE REPORTING.
This is not news. The "news" threshold was missed TWO YEARS AGO. This is ABSOLUTELY a follow-up article. You are grossly misstating things by acting as if I proposed a "feature article".
And, NO, the reporters are not "just doing their jobs". The editor is BELATEDLY assigning the article to cover his own ***. To PRETEND that the Miami Herald didn't miss anything, which it absolutely did, and has done for DECADES since Knight-Ridder began laying off staff, leaving the local reporting resources particularly deficient.
You are trying to pull the same **** that
@bacane just did. Fake-defending the press for "only doing its job", while ignoring what decades worth of diminishing resources have done to ALL levels of news reporting.
Here is the reality. Without some unusual or salacious angle, the vast majority of "news" related to fatalities will simply not be reported. Not reported at the time that it happens. And certainly not reported two years later. There simply aren't enough reporters. Period. This shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
The Herald ONLY took interest in this story because another outlet beat them to the punch. NOT because it was "news", because it is not.
What you include or do not include in the article is not simply related to "standard, dry, factual" information. As has been WIDELY discussed on this thread and other platforms, the NFL scouts and evaluators already know about this incident. Therefore, if BOTH the family of the victim AND Bain's future employer(s) know about this, how is it "news"? It's not. And that's not "a feature article" or anything else. It's a simple test of whether the article is newsworthy. And it is not.
Nobody is asking for "favoritism". But you can't fix the Herald's inability to report on "news" two years ago by belatedly posting an article that adds nothing new in the way of analysis. It would be one thing if TWO YEARS AGO, the Herald had reported on the citations being dismissed as being "defective". But it's something else entirely (and very slimy) to report the same fact today, without doing any investigation or getting any real commentary. For instance, El Herald could have spoken with an attorney who handles traffic cases to get background commentary on the reasons why a citation would be dismissed as "defective". That's not "a feature article", it's what you do when you are belatedly reporting on something and you are trying to do a journalistically superior job of reporting to provide better context on what happened (or didn't happen) two years ago.
It's just so sad that so many people want to criticize the press (or occasionally laud them when it is convenient) without knowing anything about journalistic standards or the history of the decline of journalistic resources.
Nobody "covered this up", simply because you don't have to cover up something that nobody is reporting on because there aren't enough reporters on the payroll to even report the story in the first place.
