Ole-Miss coverage a "hit" or "miss"?

Of the more than 60,000 articles on Friday night's presidential debate, many discussed the venue. Now, I didn't read all of the articles, but those I read made a point to acknowledge the history of race-relations at the University of Mississippi (the venue). That was good journalism at work.

However, the educational and political purposes for choosing that venue aside (and we know how I feel about schools and politics), what made this university the best choice?

Some articles suggested the progress the university has made since of the university over the years made it a worthy choice. Others reported that little has changed, which arguably makes it a more worthy choice. (Maybe seeing non-white, northern-bred individuals in an intellectual light will prove positive for the campus.)

Still, little coverage exists on why this school was actually chosen. Why was it even a candidate? The nickname, traditions and mascot scream disrespect and denial to a nation united and Black Americans. Yet, someone (CPD) saw fit to have the most historic of all presidential debate seasons begin here!

Does the public know how a location is chosen? The application, which lists criteria for consideration, is available online. But the criteria used to make the actual selection must be hidden on the DEEP web. (I think it's the bottom-line, noted on pages 2 and 10 of the application...but that's just me).

So where is the coverage of why a debate costs so much and how a location is chosen? If you find that in the news, let me know how "Ole-Miss" measures up! That's great journalism. So far, I'm not impressed by the University of Mississippi or the media (large student body/sponsorship and all)!