A listener emailed a complaint about my interviews with people who live in Santa Fe County and who are opposed to oil drilling next to their homes. The listener wondered why the oil-development-company-side-of-the-story was left out. It turns out this is a running story. Certainly, when the issue first came up, we along with the rest of the media presented the case for drilling as well as concern over that prospect. That first story having been told, the ensuing stories have focused on the new county ordinance regarding drilling. That's what my most recent report was about -- what do citizens make of the first draft? We had already presented the county's side of the way the ordinance was being drafted.
The listener came in in the middle of the fourth inning of this baseball game. It was as if he was asking, why didn't you present innings 1-3 ... again?
Back to the question, are there always two sides to a story?
1. Homelessness in Santa Fe is a problem. Can there be a second, opposing side to this story?
2. Per-capita water use is down. Is there another side?
3. Driving while talking on a hand-held cell is now against the law in Santa Fe. Another view? Actually, there is. KSFR has reported on it but no one else has. It's the view that any use of a cell phone, whether hand-held or hands-free has the same effect as dangerously engaging the brain. Why has no one else reported on what seems to be bona fide work by University of Utah scientists?