Century of commerce celebrated

I personally think that's a weak title, but it was the headline the Missourian used, so maybe I'm wrong. I was not impressed by this article. A hundred years is a long time for a Chamber of Commerce, or so the article says, but in that case the Chamber didn't get the attention it deserved. I think the subject allowed for a broad range of interesting topics, but the reporter instead chose to write a straightforward overview. I think he was on deadline, though; I heard them talk about this piece at the budget meeting yesterday. Unfortunately, I can't remember what they said. Oops. I guess losing my mind is catching up to me. Anyway, I still think the reporter could have found a more interesting way to portray the story. He mentioned that one of Columbia's current businesses was started in 1896, but has since changed owners. That has potential. I also thought that the lede to the story lacked punch. If I hadn't heard about the article yesterday, I probably wouldn't have read it. The story didn't have very many quotes, either. It seemed like the reporter used quotes from speeches given at the dinner. It would have been better if he had also found elderly citizens to comment on the business growth, especially former business owners. Overall, the story seemed like it was missing something. I can't quite put my finger on what, though. Maybe character? Okay, I think I figured it out. It's what Jeremy calls the "so what?" factor. The reporter doesn't do enough to tell me why I should care about this. Columbia's getting a new fountain. Yay. So what? How does this affect me? Simply telling me the Chamber of Commerce is 100 years old doesn't cut it.