Enough is enough. Or is it?

Can there be too much coverage about a particular issue? 

Sure, most reporters would agree that time spent covering stories like the marital torment of Sandra Bullock and Jesse James is a bit excessive. But what about those issues that really do impact our society on a large-scale? Is it possible to "over report" on such issues? 

It's a question that has long been debated; however, I began seriously contemplating the issue as the year-old debate on the healthcare overhaul came to vote this past Sunday night. The media has been fairly consumed with the issue. And while such attention may very well be warranted, have we failed to bring light to other important issues? 

This ProPublica article underscores the issue.  At hand is whether or not bickering about healthcare on Capitol Hill has caused other issues, namely issues surrounding the training of Afghan police offers, to be neglected. The article addresses Sen. Claire McCaskill's frustration over the cancellation of a meeting that was set to address some serious problems with Afghan police officers.  While the article focuses on  Congress' recent obsession with healthcare, there are certainly parallels when it comes to the media.  

While the healthcare debate is no doubt worthy of coverage, have we as reporters ignored other issues because of our recent fixation with the emotionally-charged fighting that has been complementing the debate? I think so. 

While I will undoubtedly fall short, as a reporter my goal is to strive to search for important themes that are underreported in mainstream media. While the assignment desk may have the the ultimate say about what I  cover, pitching such stories, which are important to viewers and not readily reported, will hopefully contribute--albeit in a small way--to a society that is more balanced in terms of news consumption and public policy.