Well, wonder no more. This week, I learned the answer. Our local journalists were more interested in giving you a big story than they were in giving you the whole story.

Where did I learn this, you ask? I learned it from watching Keith’s trial, which began on Tuesday.

I learned that Schwing Bioset was "rated dead last" only because of their price. They were rated best in every other area: pollution levels, environmental impact, ability to deliver what they promise, etc. But they were more expensive, so they lost points in the overall rating scale.

So, had the City Commission chosen a competitor strictly based on the ratings of the committee that analyzed each bidder, they may have saved piles of money, but parts of our fair city would stink like piles of dung.

Could the newspapers have found this out? Sure they could. It was all public record, and the information was located in the same files the reporters had to access in order to deliver the skewed information they did deliver.

And how about the piggybacking? According to one of the prosecution’s star witnesses, former purchasing director Windol Green, piggybacking would never have applied to a major project like constructing and maintaining a waste water treatment plant. Piggybacking, it turns out, is a process reserved for commodities like computers, paper clips, and golf balls. If Hollywood had gone through the competitive bidding process to purchase a truckload of golf balls, and Hallandale realized they too needed to purchase a truckload of golf balls, they could buy their golf balls from Hollywood’s vendor, since Hollywood had already bid out the purchase.

But for a major project to fill needs specific to each city? Not possible to piggyback. Every city needs to go through their own bidding process.

Could the newspapers have found this out? Sure they could. Do you think they didn’t interview Windol Green when the story broke? Of course they did.

So if there were so many holes in the case against Keith, why didn’t the local media let us know about any of them?

The answer is really quite simple.

In the grand scheme of things, Hollywood is a pretty boring place. We don’t get our fair share of Rush Limbaugh drug busts, Larry Craig bathroom antics, or Michael Vick dog fights. So when a juicy scandal comes our way, we jump at the opportunity!

So what if we don’t report the whole truth? At least we gave you a great story.

So what if we ruined a man’s life in the process? At least it didn’t happen to us!

And what will be when the jury finds him innocent? We’ll either blame a loophole, or bury the story on page 27.

We have more important things to do than let you know that what we swore was a scandal really wasn’t! We have bigger, juicier scandals to look for!

In December 1996, a topless dancer accused Dallas Cowboy Erik WIlliams of raping her while teammate Michael Irvin held a gun to her head.

As one might expect, the media jumped right on it. The pair was found guilty in the newspapers and on TV before they were even charged by the police.

The end result? The accusation was false. The stripper admitted to police that she had fabricated the entire story.

And Michael Irvin made one request of the press:

"Rerun it, rewrite it, reprint it," he said. "Just like you did, with the same intensity that you did - the same intensity. Don’t lose the intensity. Don’t lose the intensity."

When all this is over, I call upon the Herald, the Sun Sentinel, and the New Times to do the same thing that Michael Irvin requested. Devote as many pages to Keith’s innocence as you did to his guilt. For every time you ran that awful mug shot on the front page, run the dashing headshot with the toothy grin the rest of us are accustomed to.

Pursue the truth with the same intensity. Don’t lose the intensity. Don’t lose the intensity.