What a day. We've taxed our news staff to the limit keeping up with all of the news this week. Let us know what you think of Saturday's exhaustive print coverage. I also commend to you our online video coverage of today's events.

I'm still trying to catch up on all of your comments. I expect you'll have plenty more as the days unfold. We will follow every possible lead.

My older sister flies in Saturday for a visit from Tulsa, where she's a longtime teacher. I plan to go ahead with the vacation I had previously scheduled to show her around South Texas. Of course, I'll be checking in regularly on this big story. In the electronic age, you're never too far away.

I know the newsroom will be in the good hands of managing editor Thomas Martinez. If you have any hot tips or comments, please route them first to Tom. I may be slow in responding next week.

Despite being a part of Tuesday's story, we tried hard to cover all sides of the indictments fairly, accurately and completely.

Of course, any work done under daily deadline pressure is far from perfect. Even so, I'm proud of the work the staff did, producing six stories, a chronology of events, two compelling photos, a dramatic front-page design, and video coverage that topped what you could see on the local TV station. This was a big story, and it required a journalistic effort to match.

Most importantly, most of the online discussion has focused on the issues covered in the stories and not on the Advocate's news coverage. We'll keep trying our best to rise to this challenge, even though we can't avoid the fact that the Advocate is featured in the indictments.

For a comparison, you might consider how the Associated Press summarized the story by clicking here. The Houston Chronicle and other media outlets around the state picked up the story today.

Our editorial board takes a strong position on the case in Thursday's edition. We hope others with a differing view will write letters, guest columns and online comments in response. No one can say for sure how any of this will turn out.

What I am sure of is the importance of tough, fair news coverage.

Our editorial board's opinion was a little slow posting Sunday morning, but I hope you take the time to read it while you're reading Gabe Semenza's analysis of the Victoria District Attorney's contested records.

We want to keep journalists out of the courtroom precisely because we want them focused on covering the newsmakers. It's awkward at best to have a journalist receive a subpoena while he's in the middle of researching documents he received from that same prosecutor after a nine-month court struggle.

We value highly the independence of a free press. Already, we've had critics of the DA contacting us fearful that he might be trying to get information about them. We've told them we have no reason to think his investigation extends to those posting comments online, but the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings is intimidating. We will continue to fight to stay out of the story and to cover it fairly, completely and accurately.

One reader of my previous post contends the Advocate lost all credibility because our lawyer presented no evidence during Friday's hearing on our motion to quash Gabe's subpoena. I'm no lawyer, but I thought we had plenty of evidence listed in our motion, which I've attached here for your reading pleasure. We could have put Gabe on the stand to better make the legal case, but that's precisely what we wanted to avoid. Without a shield law, journalists are at a decided legal disadvantage in these situations.

Another reader posted that the DA can't make his case by just reading the paper. True enough, but why should he be able to make it by getting secondhand information from a journalist? He has plenty of prosecutorial power to get direct evidence without compelling a journalist to testify in secret proceedings about what others told him in the course of his reporting. Gabe didn't witness a murder. He was doing his job as a reporter.

That job should matter to everyone who loves our freedoms. From everything we hear, there's much more to the story yet to be reported.

An important hearing occurs Friday morning in the Victoria County Courthouse.

At the risk of over-dramatizing, what's at stake is the First Amendment. Subpoenas like the one Gabe Semenza received this week have a chilling effect on newsgathering. We don't fight it lightly.

News media have been called the Fourth Estate, meaning we play an important watchdog role in a democracy. To help us better do that important job, the American Society of Newspaper Editors are pushing for a federal shield law. You may read about the arguments for that on the ASNE Web site. The First Amendment Center also provides an excellent background piece on the issue. The key points the article makes about the test that should be applied before compelling journalists to testify:

• The information is highly material and relevant to the case at issue.
• A compelling need exists for the information.
• The information cannot be obtained by other means.

In the case of Gabe's subpoena, he has reported on a rift between law enforcement and the district attorney. Any relevant information he gathered has been published already in our coverage. He should not be compelled to testify when the district attorney easily can obtain the same information from the published articles or from other sources using the immense powers of a grand jury.

In this case, Gabe hasn't even used confidential sources for his stories, so there's no secret on our end the DA needs to uncover. We view the subpoena as a form of harassment and intimidation, whether the DA intends it as such or not.

If you want Gabe or any other journalist to continue to report independently on public officials and their activities, I encourage you to support both a state and federal shield law for journalists. I also urge you to support the Texas Freedom of Information Foundation. This is a cause for those who love freedom. It's not just about whether you like or dislike the Advocate.

Sheriff T. Michael O"Connor steered a steady stream of semis around the small crowd that stood Saturday alongside the road south of Victoria.

Amid the somber speeches honoring the dead and the roar of the semis going in and out of the truck stop, the sheriff told me he appreciated our first installment of our "Fatal Funnel" series last week. So much of the historic event has not been told even five years later, he said.

That's at the heart of why we've launched our special series. The worst immigrant smuggling death on U.S. soil occurred in our backyard. The human trafficking continues to this day. We felt compelled to explore the issue further with our readers.

We recognize illegal immigration is a highly charged political issue. Our intent is not to change anyone's political beliefs. We want only to further the conversation about a historic event that happened here. Not New York City. Not China. Right here.

Some readers criticized the first installment because they didn't think the story had been told enough. I can't believe these critics got past the headlines to read last Sunday's piece about volunteer paramedic Richard Streeter. He's a quiet hero in our midst. It would be a shame if the Advocate never told his story.

Our challenge in subsequent installments will be to find other untold stories. I hope we're up to this test and the community conversation is the better for it. Let us know what you think.

Toni Anne asked this question to my previous post. Although I answered it there, I thought I'd create a separate item for this topic to keep the discussion separate from the previous one:

The Advocate publishes the first 4.5 inches of an obituary for free. If you want to publish a longer version or have the obituary appear more than once, we do charge a fee. The guidelines appear daily on Page B2. Paid obituaries receive a free online guest book for 30 days. You may find that by clicking on obituaries in the top navigation bar of our Web site.

Most U.S. newspapers charge for obituaries in some way or another. Many don't print any part of an obituary for free. An American Journalism Review article from 1999 explores the shift in how newspapers have handled obituaries.

As an editor, I'm not particularly fond of charging for these important notices, but I have to agree with the section of the article about the number of struggles I've had with family members and funeral homes when we published free obituaries and forced them to comply with news guidelines. With paid obituaries, family members are free to write them as they like because the items are no longer considered news articles. We do, of course, still write some news obituaries about prominent people.

I'd hate for cost to ever prevent someone from publishing something as important as an obituary in the newspaper. I hope our policy works for most readers. Thanks for asking, Toni Anne.

I'd appreciate hearing from readers about their experiences with getting obituaries published in the Advocate.

When we place a story on the front page, we are not advocating for it.

Rather, we make our news decisions based primarily on how interested and important our readers might be on any given article. In the case of Monday's story on the first gay-pride event in the Crossroads region, we thought many readers would find it interesting.

We figured some readers would object to the event while others would celebrate it, based on their individual political and religious backgrounds. We were looking at the story, however, only through the filter of what is news. Of course, any definition is subjective, but most journalism textbooks cite these characteristics: timeliness, impact, proximity, controversy, prominence, currency and oddity.

By this standard, you can see why the first gay-pride event in the Crossroads region would fit the definition of news. Every day, we weigh the local menu of stories and see what's best to serve up on the front page. If you would like to see this process in action, I encourage you to e-mail or call me at 361-574-1271 to arrange a visit to our afternoon news meeting.

After Monday's story appeared, I called a Yoakum reader who had canceled his subscription. He shared that he thought Americans were losing their rights and didn't think a conservative community wanted to endorse such an event.

I told him I agreed with him about the importance of our individual liberties. My bias, based on my line of work, is that a locally owned newspaper, such as the Advocate, provides the foundation for those rights in a democratic society. The First Amendment protects not only the freedom of the press, but freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government.

I encouraged him to exercise his rights by voicing his opinion about this event and any other news. We ended our call on a positive note, and I told him I hoped I'd see him at the Yoakum Lions Club meeting on May 20. I just learned today I've been invited to speak to this group. He said to tell the Lions I'd talked to "a grumpy old man."

I hung up with a smile on my face. Even when we disagree, I am heartened when we can do so agreeably.

• Our circulation remained essential stable, declining by less than one half of one percentage point daily and growing by just over one-half of a percentage point Sunday.
• Among Texas newspapers, Victoria Advocate ranks FIRST in penetration in Daily City Zone Circulation; Daily Retail Trade Zone Circulation; and Sunday Retail Trade Zone Circulation
• We rank THIRD in the state in Sunday City Zone Circulation, behind Abilene and San Angelo, both of which saw a decline in total paid circulation during the Fas Fax six-month period. In other words, they better not look behind them because we are gaining!

We hope you will take time Sunday to read the first installment of a special project spearheaded by Public Service Editor Gabe Semenza.

The project examines the deaths of 19 immigrants who suffocated to death in the back of a locked tractor-trailer five years ago this month. We hope it goes from there to tell the complicated story of illegal immigration and how that affects the Crossroads region.

Along with Gabe, several other newsroom staffers played key roles in this first installment: Multimedia Editor Robert Zavala, graphic artist Julie Zavala, Presentation Editor Kimiko Fieg, Managing Editor Thomas Martinez, Photo Editor Frank Tilley, Broadcast Editor Bill Clough and Web developer Shawn Willmon.

They've all done powerful and important work. I'm proud to commend it to your attention.

A delightful woman came up to me at a Bach Festival event last month and told me she missed "Fred Basset." She and her husband had owned basset hounds since they were married about 40 years ago. She loved the dogs and the longtime comic strip.

A couple of weeks later I saw her during an intermission at the Victoria Symphony. She smiled and told me how partial she had become to "Mutts," the strip the Advocate has been running in Fred's place. She had even clipped several strips. Could the newspaper run both strips? she wondered.

A good question. Maybe it's time we answered that by conducting a reader poll of all Advocate comic strips. Since we've experimented with "Mutts," we've heard from people who both love and hate the little dog. Quite a few have suggested we replace other strips besides "Fred."

Before we do anything else, though, perhaps it's best if we hear from more readers.  With that in mind, we're working on a way to allow readers to rate all of our comic strips. If the verdict is readers just want "Fred" back and no changes, that's more than fine. After all, we really do want to make as many readers as happy as possible.

Our primary motive with any change of longtime features is to weed out those that have run their course and to make way for new blood. If newspapers never tried new comic strips, we never would have met my all-time favorite, "Calvin and Hobbes." Oh, how I wish we could persuade Bill Watterson to come out of retirement and bring that little boy and his tiger back to our pages.

When that other great newspaper cartoonist, Charles Schulz died in 2000, he specified in his will that no new "Peanuts" cartoons would be drawn. Fortunately, he left 50 years of strips to rerun for a new generation.

Only "Calvin and Hobbes" and "Peanuts" deserve such reverence, however. When "Fred Basset" creator Alex Graham died more than a decade ago, his strip went on without him. The question we posed when we stopped carrying the strip was whether his dog's better days were behind him.

After more than a month of "Mutts," we still don't have a clear answer from readers. You might say we're chasing our tail, but we hope to have a little fun with a comics version of "American Idol."

What do you think? Can we find Victoria's version of Paula, Randy and Simon?

P.S.: For those with a warped sense of humor and a dislike for Fred, check out this YouTube video. Be warned, though. I didn't post it on my blog because of the objectionable language at the end.

We know people love garage sales. After midnight, we actually see a spike in Web traffic because that's when we have put our new listings online.

Some people want to map out their treasure hunt as early as possible. They can't wait until the paper hits their doorstep at 6 a.m.

With these readers in mind, we've created CrossroadsTreasures.com.  Like CrossroadsDining.com, the site combines Google maps with Advocate listings to create a handy directory. You can peruse the listings to find all of the garage sales you want to hit and then plot the fastest route to get from each one.

On Saturday, you'll see we have 71 garage sales listed so far in the Crossroads region. Click on the trip planner link to add addresses to the map. For example, I plotted a trip from the Advocate's office in downtown Victoria would take me 35 miles, or 57 minutes to an estate sale in Yoakum. Of course, your driving time may vary.

You can make the map as intricate as you like. Let us know how you like the new service. Happy treasure hunting.