Overshadowed by the continuing fracas over naming a different street after Martin Luther King the media carry the story of Lafayette's decision not to proceed with an appeal of BellSouth's win at the appellate level.
I covered this pretty extensively last night after a visit to the council chamber. The Advocate and the Advertiser post stories that are nearly identical structurally but with a bit more in detail from the Advocate. The key issue that the Advocate gets that the Advertiser misses is cost: dropping the position LUS, the city, the lawmakers involved, and the PSC agreed was the right interpretation of the law will cost LUS and hence the ratepayers of Lafayette real money. (My response, as you might expect, highlights that hard consequence.)
KLFY also has an online short focusing on the issue. It repeats the incumbent talking point (attributing it clearly to the incumbents, I grant) that the "project stifles competition." I confess to grow weary with reporting that merely repeats the he said, she said list of statements from the two sides. Something so obviously false as the current near-monopoly owners objecting to a new competitor with the empty phrase that it would "stifle competition" really shouldn't pass muster with a reporter who is trying to inform the public.
Update: 1/18/06- 2:15: You can now get the original press release off LUS' site.