<table> </table> Sadly, most newspapers write about crime every day. An Oct. 2 story in <em>The Kansas City Star </em>drew praise from some readers, but others found its tone problematic.</p><p>The debate centered on reporter Christine Vendel&#8217;s coverage of the short life and funeral of Vincent Williams, who was killed by a clerk at a convenience store during an attempted armed robbery.</p><p>The story ran on the cover of the Local section with a large photo of Alvin Brooks, president of the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime, speaking at the funeral with the coffin and floral arrangements behind him. A portrait of Williams accompanied the jump.</p><p>One caller said she knew one of the people who were in the convenience store at the time of the shooting, and she felt the story was inappropriate because of its focus on Williams.</p><p>&#8220;Why not talk about the people (Williams) terrorized?&#8221; she asked. &#8220;Not only are there not enough consequences (for criminals), but you also glorify them. To put the casket of the criminal on the front page of the Local section is to glorify him.&#8221;</p><p>That&#8217;s an objection I&#8217;ve heard before many times, though usually only in regards to suspects and convicts who are still living. <em>The Star </em>is giving them the attention they desire by writing about their exploits, the reasoning goes. There&#8217;s often truth to that. Many people wear society&#8217;s scorn as a badge of honor, no question.</p><p>Here, though, I don&#8217;t know that I see it. After all, there are few starker reminders of the possible consequences of violence than a funeral service in front of a grieving parent.</p><p>Another caller instead criticized the idea of looking at Williams&#8217; problems in school and finding a job. &#8220;I know Alvin Brooks knew this young man and is upset at the life he chose,&#8221; he said.</p><p>&#8220;I know (Williams&#8217;) learning disabilities were difficult for him. But it says right here that he rebuilt lawnmowers and knew how to work. I just can&#8217;t help but think the whole purpose of the article was to justify what he was trying to do, saying that it&#8217;s society&#8217;s fault. At the end of the day, he&#8217;s the one who picked up the gun and waved it in the shopkeeper&#8217;s face.&#8221;</p><p><strong><span class="subhead">Meltdown watch</span></strong></p><p>The No. 1 topic at my lines this past week has been the federal government&#8217;s reaction to the credit market meltdown. While most simply wanted to share their thoughts at how the country arrived at this mess, several also called on the press to flex its watchdog muscles.</p><p>It&#8217;s been fascinating to me that these requests are coming from both the left and the right &#8212; with equal passion.</p><p>&#8220;Here&#8217;s your chance to keep your eye out and tell us what our representatives are voting and spending our money on,&#8221; said one. &#8220;We look to you to tell us who voted for what, and where the money went. We the public feel like we&#8217;ve been sold a bill of goods, and the newspapers need to stand up and report on the process.&#8221;</p><p>It&#8217;ll be up to you to tell me how <em>The Star </em>does on that count.