Sometimes More Is More and Other Reasons I Should Stop Reading The Cap Times

Why do I refer to Madison's afternoon paper as "The Crap Times"? Well, here's a couple reasons.

Firstly there's this story which was under the "Headlines" section today: "12-year-old shoots 9-year-old sister; ice to blame". A kid slips and accidentally shoots his sister in the leg with a BB gun and this is a "headline" for TCT. I am now fearful that the impending online-only version of the paper will have a whole section devoted to childhood accidents. I just can't wait until next month when I can get my fix of "Little Jimmy scrapes cheek; ice to blame" and "10-year-old girl twists ankle at ballet practice" stories.

And what story is on the main page right now with title in big font? "Will global warming affect Packers' success?" The article cites a statistic which says that "cold weather teams won more than 65 percent of their home games played from November through January against warm weather teams from 1998 through 2005". After spending a few paragraphs discussing this phenomenon and the potential impact of global warming on the Packers, it is conceded that such discussion is "a lighthearted way" to tackle (ahem) a serious issue. I don't have a problem with this way of introducing the topic despite it eschewing the inverted pyramid format that aspiring journalists are taught. (My girlfriend is taking a journalism class and I have thumbed through her textbook.) But can the serious bit get more space? Can the lighthearted stuff get a paragraph or two before we give over the bulk of the article to the real issue? When the piece's author finally does, here's what we get:

Kohler has little hope for action by the state Legislature this week -- the final week of the legislative session -- on a bill aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The bill was approved by a Senate environmental committee but has not been taken up by the corresponding Assembly committee, and an attempt by Democrats to bring up the bill on the floor of the Assembly failed.

Carrie Lynch, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, said it is unlikely -- given the state's current budget problems -- that this bill, which would add state employees, will move forward.

I am glad all of this info was included but too much was left out. What have I learned about the bill? 1) It aims to limit greenhouse gas emissions and 2) it would require the state to hire more people. That's it. For an issue that can have "serious effects" for "environment, economy and public health" (including potential poor Packer performance), Ms. Weier seems quite disinterested in giving her readers much information. Why would additional people have to be hired? By what means would this bill, should it become law, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Why did the Assembly committee fail to take it up? Who was responsible for ensuring that the bill was not brought to the floor of the Assembly?

So, if you're not going to give us the courtesy of explaining any of the details of the bill, can you please provide a link to it? If you don't want to help us understand, please, at the very least, provide links so that we have tools so that we can do the work ourselves.