By an Associated Press Reporter

A friend visiting San Francisco expressed dismay at the quality of the San Francisco Chronicle. He noted that there were only a handful of pages devoted to international coverage and all were from the Associated Press.

It's like this at papers across the country. With the exception of the big boys (New York Times, WSJ, Washington Post), most have cut staffs so severely that the resources aren't there to have their own people overseas, on Capitol Hill, or anywhere outside of their own backyard.

Wall Street cheers this. Business people say why does each paper need their own person overseas or covering Congress? After all, a hearing is a hearing. A battle is a battle. Who needs more than one person covering it?

You know who likes this approach besides Wall Street? Government. The fewer reporters that are out there the fewer hassles, the fewer headaches, the fewer chances that a great wrong will be exposed. This is nothing against the Associated Press, but they can't be everywhere doing everything. Furthermore, as more and more papers count on AP for their bread and butter coverage, AP can't use its resources for more enterprise reporting.

I know the newspaper industry is under tremendous pressure. I know the Internet is a real threat. Ironically, newspapers are producing the content and then giving it away for free on the Internet. In all seriousness, the Internet exists off of so-called mainstream media. I don't have an answer for any of this. I do know that as more newspapers go under or cut staff, reporting will disappear. There will be even fewer voices probing, investigating, asking the questions. And that's not good for anyone.