Thanks to the interactive nature of the web, some news stories actually get better after a few days. (Kind of like a good spaghetti sauce that is simmered low and slow.)

Case in point: Sunday's story by Dan Voelpel on the future of the Russell Co. and the possibility that it may leave Tacoma one day. By Monday there was already some lively discussion on the story's comments page and on other local blogs, most notably Exit 133.

Here's an example:

If Russell leaves Tacoma you might as well roll up the sidewalks and forget about any meaningful development in the downtown area. Hopefully Tacoma city fathers/mothers won't let this happen like with Boeing & Weyerhauser. Tacoma needs to pull out all the stops for development and keep this company in Tacoma.

For a news organization, it's much easier to know which stories really resonate with an audience now. If a story gets good traffic online and generates discussion, either on the news site or on other local blogs, then you know you're onto something that many other people care about or find interesting. Reporters and editors still get phone calls and emails, of course, but other readers don't get the benefit of "listening in" on those comments.

No, it's not perfect. The quality of the comments varies. Conservative-liberal political name-calling seems to seep in everywhere. But news that is a conversation instead of a lecture is better for everyone.

UPDATE: Peter Callaghan just pointed out a story on the San Francisco Chronicle's site right now about a tiger fatally mauling a zookeeper. The story has 766 comments now, and it was just posted this morning. I'm not sure who actually reads all those comments, but it clearly is a feature that news consumers enjoy.