With investigative pieces, the best news rarely gets attention. Often, this is not due to any conspiracy theories of Big Brother domination or control. Undertaking serious investigations is a mammoth task that is never guaranteed to produce any earth-shattering news. Most media outlets shun these pieces because it means setting aside a reporter for months at a time, getting "no" stories out of him or her for that time period, but still shelling out the reporter's salary. Only the biggest of newspapers and television stations can afford to do this. One notable exception to the No News Rule is the San Jose Mercury News' investigation of drugs and the U.S. Government.

With daily news, familiarity makes the eye grow unobservant. Reporters who cover a beat (an area of coverage) day after day inevitably become accustomed to how things work and accept that. A police reporter, for instance, sees police haul in thugs day after day and routinely tell the crooks' lawyers to wait out in the hall while they question his client. Highly illegal and unconstitutional, but a fact of life. A reporter who grows familiar with this stops seeing it as news and begins to view it as part of the game. Also, if a reporter wants any hope of getting information from the cops again, he won't raise a ruckus about a few cut corners here or there.

With in-depth features, the problem is much the same as the investigative pieces: time and resources. News editors with small staffs often go for the slash and burn quick pieces without devoting the time necessary for a reporter to scope out all the details: the small ones that make a story come alive and that really show instead of tell.

When it comes to the case of hysterically funny or intense true-life stories, prudence and the fact that the newspaper has to serve all audiences keeps questionable material, which is often the most informative -- or at least amusing -- from getting in the paper or on the television. One notable exception to this rule has been the Weird News syndicated column that culls stories from around the world for the interesting, the quirky, the tawdry, the bizarre.

No News' mission then, is to provide readers with the news they can't find elsewhere. Through both original reporting and providing links, No News seeks to be an alternative news source for those disenchanted with the media. Time and time again, surveys show people are angry with the media for "filtering" the news. "Filtering" is where a reporter picks and chooses what to report and perhaps puts his or her spin, or opinion, into the report. News programs or web sites that have gone to primary sources as a way of bypassing this "filtering" have been fantastically successful. Court TV, C-SPAN and other outlets -- whose mission is to show actual court cases or actual congressional hearings, in all of both their glory and boredom -- have become successful beyond wildest expectations.

No News both enjoys and regrets this revolution. On the one hand, it takes the power out of the hands of the elite media and returns it to those the media ostensibly represent: the people. Court TV, for instance, allowed millions of people to decide for themselves whether O.J. was guilty or innocent. People did not have to rely on what happened to fit into 6 column inches of newspaper reports each day. Those without jobs could sit home and watch TV all day and decide for themselves. Those who were total losers could record the day's events on their VCRs and watch it when they got home at night. Democracy in action, right?

But there is a drawback to the lack of filtering. Unfortunately, from years of being in the business and seeing most of the scams there are to see, reporters have a fairly good idea of when someone is lying, yanking their chain or just blowing the same old smoke. Talk radio, which embraced the direct source philosophy, does indeed let the people hear political candidates without filters. But it lets them tell every lie, distortion and mischaracterization they want without any challenge.

So where does the balance lie? No News believes that the Internet is precisely suited to striking a balance between the filtered and the unfiltered, and several media outlets are well on their way to doing just that. We do not believe the Internet has changed people's nature. The same media elite will write the stories they always have. But unlike a newspaper, the Internet has an infinite number of pages.

For instance, in the future, a story on a court trial, will let the reader decide how much supporting documentation to put in the story. The main body of the story will give the author's take on what happened in court that day. But if something doesn't ring true, or correct, the reader can then click a link to see the court files himself. If the case occurred in a state where cameras in the court are legal, the reader can opt to watch the day's proceedings himself.

In other words, thoroughness is not lost for the sake of brevity, and vice-versa.