I was dumbstruck by this story, which to my utter surprise gave a very good explanation of insurance pricing and how, if insurers are denied the ability to set rates at the level of perceived risk, they may not only refrain from selling to the riskiest customers, but pull out of that market altogether. I wish the story had a byline so I knew whom to congratulate.
I am amazed by this story because the usual format for insurance stories is for the lead to contain some quotes by outraged homeowners about how high their premiums are. How and why this happens, including any mention that the homeowner may be living in a $1.1 million house 200 feet from the ocean, is mostly left as big a mystery to the reader as it apparently is to the writer.
Now, my views on this do not mean I am against necessarily against all sensationalism in journalism, which has its place, such as in the thousands of crime stories I wrote about serial killers, street gangs, narcotics vendors, unidentified dead bodies found in the desert, and so forth. But even with those stories, I offered context whenever possible, along with an explanation, if there was one, of what kind of people do these things and why. Too many writers fail to admit to themselves that their stories about politics and insurance are nothing more than sensationalism with a clean shirt and a new pair of shoes.