In a groggy state this morning, I read through today's Philadelphia Inquirer to see what might be in the news. The Bali blast -- the latest attack by our number one enemy Al Qaida, which killed American citizens -- was edged off the front page by the following stories:

While all of the above stories are newsworthy, the latest report about the al Qaida attack which killed at least 26 (including 6 Americans and 17 Australians) was on page three. "Oh well," I thought. It's now old news.

But what about yesterday afternoon's Oklahoma suicide bombing?

It was all over the Internet yesterday, and to me it's now old news, but isn't it as worthy as a report on aging? And even if they didn't see fit to put it on the front page, why not a paragraph somewhere? I read through the entire newspaper, and it just wasn't there at all. Is Philadelphia too far from Oklahoma for it to be of interest? If so, then why does today's London's Guardian have a full story in the "Breaking International News" category?

Perhaps I shouldn't single out the Inquirer, because it appears that its parent company Knight Ridder didn't pick up the story either.

However, ABC News, the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, USA Today, MSNBC, CBS, and many other news outlets did.

While I am relieved no one else was killed, for some reason, I find myself asking questions like, "Why was he so close to the stadium?" and "Was he planning to go inside?"

I'd like to give the Inquirer (and even Knight Ridder) the benefit of the doubt here. But somehow, I find it hard to swallow the idea that they didn't know about this story.

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds opined on CNN that "journalists ought to tell us what they know."

I agree.

But the problem is, I'm stuck in Philadelphia.

(And with all respect to Glenn, he lives in a sophisticated city where stories like this get reported.)

UPDATE: In updating another post, I inadvertently updated this one by accident. (The erroneous update has been moved/deleted.)