Death is always in the news. From local car crashes to catastrophes in faraway places, deadly events are grist for the media mill. The coverage is ongoing -- and almost always superficial.

It may be unfair to blame journalists for failing to meet standards that commonly elude artists. For centuries, on the subject of death, countless poets have strived to put the ineffable into words. It’s only easy when done badly.

Yet it’s hard to think of any other topic that is covered so frequently and abysmally in news outlets. The reporting on death is apt to be so flat that it might be mistaken for ball scores or a weather report.

Pallid coverage of the dying is especially routine in U.S. news media when a war is underway and the deaths are caused by the U.S. government.

When a news report breaks through cliches to evoke realities of carnage, the result can be memorable. Here’s a passage from an April 1999 story by Robert Fisk, reporting for the London-based daily Independent about a U.S.-led NATO bombing raid on a target in Yugoslavia:

"Levitan the painter and I went out to the woodcock mating area yesterday evening. He fired at a woodcock, and the bird, wounded in the wing, fell in a puddle. I picked it up. It had a long beak, large black eyes, and magnificent plumage. It looked at us in wonder. What were we to do with it? Levitan closed his eyes and begged me, "Please, smash its head in with the rifle." I said I couldn't. Levitan kept twitching his head and begging me. And the woodcock kept looking on in wonder. I had to obey Levitan and kill it. And then two idiots went home and sat down to dinner leaving one less beautiful, adored creature in the world." -- Anton Chekhov in a letter to his friend Suvorin, April 8, 1892.

Perhaps Dick Cheney should have whacked Harry Whittington's skull in as the wounded lawyer looked up at him in wonder, while the covey of bobwhite quail rejoiced at the happy chance of Mr. Whittington's head and upper chest intercepting Vice President Cheney's salvo from his 28-gauge shotgun.

Last June 17, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, "If you think of the people down there (at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, (Osama bin Laden's) bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker."

Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department’s own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Mr. Rumsfeld’s. And, despite the millions of words journalists have written about GITMO during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.

One report, prepared by a team headed by Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey – who is a lawyer for two of the Guantanamo detainees – found that more than half of the terror suspects being held have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies.

Dear Dr Fitrakis and members of Columbus Free Press:

Perhaps you heard on WCBE a recent news story about Howard Dean's visit to Ohio and his discussion of the immense corruption of Ohio's Republican Party. The reporter was Natalie Walston and as of yet, I am not sure who is responsible for that story but it was a horrid example of journalism that has got me thinking. In short, Walston made an unnecessary description of Dean by referring to his infamous "I have a Dream" speech which essentially sunk his campaign. Walston's story even included an excerpt of the speech. Given the stated content of the story, the reference to the "Scream" speech was entirely unnecessary and clearly meant to discredit him.

I later called Walston and asked her why she included this reference and she responded, "...he had a calmer voice this time." I then responded, "Oh come on..." and then she hung up on me!

I am quite shocked at the tabloid level of reporting that this represents and it really makes me wonder if this is simply base journalism meant to entertain the masses or even worse, representing that "Statehouse News

AUSTIN, Texas -- Cynics are fond of meditating on the evil done in the name of reform. I'm a great believer in perpetual reform myself, on the theory that political systems, like houses, are always in want of some fixing. However, I have seen some pluperfect doozies passed off as reform in recent years, starting with "Social Security reform."

Conservatives used to oppose reform on principle, correctly regarding it as a vile plot by goo-goo good government forces to snatch away their perks. This once led to a colorful scene in the Texas legislature in which the letters R*E*F*O*R*M appeared on the rear ends of six female members of a baton drill team, who turned and perched their derrieres pertly on the brass rail of the House gallery.

Reform follows scandal as night the day, except in these sorry times when it appears we may not get a nickel's worth of reform out of the entire Jack Abramoff saga. Sickening. A real waste of a splendid scandal. When else do politicians ever get around to fixing huge ethical holes in the roof except when they're caught red-handed? Do not let this mess go to waste! Call now, and demand reform!