Reading about the Texas Tribune case, one learns about “Brussels Sprouts in journalism.” In this case, the newspaper had a choice to cover an important story, but they choose not to. There can be a good and bad side to the issue. Looking at the background information, “The Tribune is a nonprofit attempt to use a mix of donations, sponsorships, premium content and revenue from conferences to come up with a sustainable model for journalism that neither depends on nor requires a print product.” Since the story was a big deal and the paper was based on donations, the head leader should be able to decide what is important for the people, as well as the paper.
“We’re about public policy and politics,” Mr. Smith said. “What I wasn’t going to do was send someone racing up the interstate to cover something, however important, that wasn’t ours.” In this case, it’s fine that the story wasn’t covered. The story wasn’t appropriate for the Texas Tribune. For example, if something major happened in politics, a publication such as Vogue is not going to cover it. There is common sense in Brussels Sprout journalism.
As the paper is made up of many successful writers, it has a long way to go. But not covering a big story shouldn’t be a big deal. It’s the papers decision on what stories they decide to run, and this one wasn’t appropriate. There is a right and wrong to the issue. On the other hand, since the paper is based on donations, it should publish what the people want. All in all, the paper did a good job.