Opinion: Why the change in city coverage?
There has been chatter in the community about Current’s heightened coverage of city government in the last six months. The reason for that different coverage is borne of independent research. We were “told” in the respondents’ answers to the research firm to go after city-government news that “makes a difference in our lives.” And so we have. We brought managing editor Pete Smith and reporter Adam Aasen aboard to work the beat, as is said, and it’s all being done under the bright lights for the public’s best interests. Some folks look at us cross-eyed over the new emphasis on coverage of where your tax dollars are going, but we will not change course. Is it a firmer stance we’re taking than that which Current showed in days gone by? It certainly is, and this coverage is what our readers demanded, and it is exactly what they shall receive. No one is on a “witch hunt” here, as recently was said to one of us. We are after transparency and prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars. If you have something you would like examined with respect to city operations, please e-mail Smith directly at email@example.com.
* * *
As we closed in on press time, there still was no clarity on why the Community Relations Dept. has hired, at nearly $100,000 annually, a former news reporter to an economic-development communications position. Carmel City Council member Luci Snyder asked some time ago for an explanation, and she and others still are awaiting it.
* * *
We realize the primary election is more than a month away, but it’s never too soon to research and listen to the many candidates eligible for May 6 polling. Closer to voting day, we’ll provide an election primer, one that will be part of Current on May 3. We don’t like to deliver on Election Day, so you’ll have your paper the Saturday before.