I found the most compelling story in Williams’ “Good News” to be the one that dealt with the logging industry vs conservationists. While this book was generally uplifting with the ways that the news and media portrayed these various groups, I found it especially relieving to know that the voice to protect the northern California redwood forests and open spaces in general was backed by more than just a local party, but by a large amount of outside people. It was rather disheartening to see how most of the news media groups were focusing on either the politicians or the business aspects of the conflict, completely ignoring the activists and rallys that would draw more attention to the cause of preserving the forests. But that KMUD then stepped up and provided extensive coverage to the grassroots protesters and gave them the boost they needed to achieve their goal of saving the open spaces/redwood forests was admirable. If the news can be responsible and cover all sides of an issue like this case, we could have a much more well informed and contemplative society. It’s important that we prioritize what an issue actually is before we start hearing what the opinions of the news stations are, if we even need to know that in the first place. My question for Williams is “Since media coverage is all too often biased and looking to promote one side of an issue that they personally favor, how would one expect to purge this from the media system so that news groups return to simply informing the public of specific issues rather than push their specific opinion on the viewer”?