Lois Duncan's "One for the Wolves"

     I can't even come close to relating to Lois Duncan's pain. Losing a child is the worst thing that can happen. But losing a child and not knowing what actually happened is particularly terrible. 

     Duncan and her husband, Don Arquette, were told their daughter, Kaitlyn, was killed in a drive-by shooting. But too many things didn't add up, so they feel they actually have no idea what happened to the 18-year-old, the youngest of their five children.

     One for the Wolves is the second book Duncan has written about the murder. The first book, Who Killed my Daughter? brought more evidence and more questions to the family.

     It's a complicated story. Kaitlyn had moved in with her boyfriend and apparently discovered his involvement with an insurance fraud scheme. Unfortunately, many of Kaitlyn's possessions that were taken by the police as evidence disappeared. In addition, she worked at an import store and there was evidence of the possible importing of drugs.

     Issues within the Albuquerque Police Department continued to complicate the case as well. The Arquettes hired private investigators, talked to the FBI and even consulted psychics to try to get to the bottom of their daughter's death. 

     Duncan, known for her young adult fiction, writes in a manner both informative and intimate. She details the complicated and frustrating efforts she and Don and many others went through. All the while, the reader senses the pain and anger. Finding the truth won't bring Kait back, but it would bring a type of closure. 

     Although most of us will never know the trauma Lois and Don suffer, we can all relate to a sense of not knowing. Duncan brings in related cases and several others in which parents are convinced they were never told the entire truth by the authorities. The feeling that the police not only less than forthcoming, but possibly culpable is frightening. It's not something most people would want to think about, but it could happen. And we should thank Lois Duncan for reminding us we can't always trust those we are most likely to trust.

     It is a difficult read, but an important book on many levels.  

What Can Replace Ads?

     Journalism isn't dying, Sree Sreenivasan, the guru of all things social media, said at a recent conference, the business is wobbly.

     Whether it's wobbly enough to say the era of ad-supported journalism is over is still being debated. 

     Ad-supported journalism has changed a good deal since the age of front page ads and wood cut graphics. Even since the age of those peculiar filler classified at the bottom of columns on the front page of The New York Times:

          "Urgent need for 19th Century French hand-painted wallpaper in muted tones of teal. MU8-6665."

          "Rosemary, I need you back before June 12. Bring the dog."

          "Waterfront sublet. Available March 1. Prefer hard-of-hearing person with large cat.  RI6 -4428." 
      
     The ad model has been undermined by the availability of many other ways to reach potential customers. Direct mail to the email inbox. Ads on your Facebook page. Pop-ups on the web pages you access. Of course there are still people in business who have a problem buying what is essential air, but lots of business folk seem to be moving in that direction. 

     So, how do you pay for getting the news to the people?

     There are models of not-for-profits working on a national scale, such as Pro Publica, which try to fill the gap in investigative reporting. But, investigative reporting isn't the only kind that suffers.

     A white paper by Steven Waldman and supported by the Ford Foundation was released by the Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University in New Jersey addresses the issue of labor-intensive local reporting. 

     According to Waldman, "Ad-based business models do not generate enough revenue to pay enough reporters enough money to do enough reporting." 

    Which may have always been the truth. . . 

     Waldman points out the number of words produced is as high as ever (some "editors" operate under the fantasy that quantity trumps quality), but the time required to report is not being compensated.

     Newsroom cutbacks don't leave enough staff to do sufficient reporting. Freelancers are paid by the story or the inch or the word so they can't afford to extensively research. This damages both investigative and beat reporting. 

     Obviously, no or low pay for investigative pieces pretty much eliminates the ability to produce any sort of thoughtful, indepth story.

     Day to day, beat reporting suffers as well. Waldman's white paper touches on this, but the reality is more nuanced than is likely to be discussed in an academic paper. 

     Covering a beat requires getting to know the people you need as sources. That takes time. 

Jefferson Township Council

     With cops, you have to prove you're one of the boys, especially if you aren't a boy. This includes not getting sick at gory car accidents, laughing at their sexist jokes and, on occasion, buying Burger King for children abandoned on the steps of police headquarters. 

    With municipal and county officials, you don't have to pretend you agree with their politics, but you have to sympathize. Roll your eyes and make sympathetic noises when the mayor is apoplectic because a tattoo parlor or check-cashing establishment opened on Main Street. Nod knowlingly when the council president gripes about his colleagues from the other party. It means making them comfortable with you. And that takes time. Time that's not always compensated. 

    The question remains can we ever return to successful beat reporting? I, for one, don't have an answer.

State park officials and residents at a Lake Hopatcong Commission meeting.