Writing FOR a community vs. writing IN one

To my way of thinking one of the great flaws in newspaper thought lies in assumptions about local news. Most publishers think that the only thing that matters to a town happens in that town. They give their reporters shock collars that go off every time they dare think about anything that happens outside of the distribution radius and use wire copy to fill in the gaps. The wire copy is bland, generic versions of stories that have little relevance or insight. Sure an editor may have had the wherewithal to go through and add the little "a Kansas resident" things, but no one would take the time to contextualize the story beyond the random localization elements.

However, that is not the real way in which people view their lives. A bill passed in congress that lowers crop subsides for ethanol could have sweeping impact to farmers in Indiana and consumers in Utah. Fashions in New York could affect the styles of students returning to school in Arizona. It's not where it happens that matters, but how it affect the residents. Its not what, but why.

By restricting local coverage to things that only occur in an area, publishers miss the big picture of relevance of their residents. I'm one of the "suits" that argues they do need remote bureaus, but those people need to focus on detailed issues that can affect their local populace rather than attend the same press conference that AP, Reuters, CNN and the NYT will be covering. I'm arguing that remote news gathering operations need to be even better at digging deep and having personal contacts than their brethren closer to home.

Simply put, local is what matters to a community, and many of those things occur well outside of its boundaries.