So here we go, just in time this week for a seminar on why it is you can't just read a story but must edit for yourself as you go.

And if you can't be your own editor, at least think like one.

For this exercise, we'll look at parts of a national story that appeared in newspapers last week.

For you USCFootball.com folks, this may have special interest.

REGGIE BUSH SET TO TESTIFY IN DEPOSITION . . . was the headline and most of you probably saw some version of it.

Here's how we'll do this. First, we'll show you excerpts of the story in bold Italics as written, then follow with commentary as if we were the story editor trying to make it fair, accurate, adding context where needed by asking questions we'd wished someone would have asked of the story's writer.

"Long-sought?" By whom. Notre Dame and UCLA fans? NCAA investigators? Sportswriters? USC administrators? Who exactly? Is it the "fledgling sports marketer?"

Which brings us to our next question. Is "fledgling sports marketer" really the best way to describe the person filing the suit?

Or would it be more correct to define him in terms that describe who he's been and what he's actually done in his life like: "career offender" as he's designated in a presentence report for the U.S. District Court Southern District of California or maybe just "arrested seven times," as he's admitted, or, as some have reported, a "former affiliate with the Emerald Hills Blood Gang" who's spent several years in jail?

Whatever, we're not talking about some former P&G brand manager with a Master's in Marketing from Wharton.

And yes, this does cut both ways since it could be asked how a person with this bio, even a fellow Helix High School alum, could get close to the Bush family.

Then there's the "trying to recoup nearly $300,000 in cash and gifts the star running back and his family allegedly accepted while he was playing at the University of Southern California."

Doesn't using the word "recoup" indicate that he actually did deliver "$300,000 in cash and gifts"? What's the evidence for this? Are there receipts? Is there a contract? Any videos, recordings with Reggie Bush himself admitting as much and that anyone with an impartial take has ever heard? Something written on the back of a napkin? A cellphone video? One lousy cancelled check?

And just to be sure, is this the same $300,000 that this person's former partner already sued over, receiving an out-of-court settlement for something rumored to be between $200,000 and $300,000? Or does this mean the Bush family received $600,000 in all? And if so, why did another well-publicized national story make so much of showing how the Bushes were getting agents to pay hotel bills of $623 and airfare to Oakland?

Then there's this: ". . . the star running back and his family allegedly accepted . . . ," but do we not know if the "cash and gifts" went to the "star running back" or his "family" or both? And if it's the "family," are they being deposed? Or have they been?

And what does it matter if the "cash and gifts" were given before, during or after his time "playing at the University of Southern California?" Even if the Bush family defaulted on the deal, how does USC matter here? How is the school involved? Why mention USC in a San Diego dispute over money? How could it be relevant where Bush went to school?

And if somehow USC is involved, wouldn't it have been in USC's interest to try to see that the Bush family had nothing to do with a "fledgling sports marketer" who wanted him to drop out of school? Seems odd to name USC in the lede graf. Is it because a relatively unremarkable business dispute doesn't matter unless one of the parties can invoke a USC?

And now we paraphrase a bit: Before Bush's Friday deposition, (Lloyd) Lake's former partner, Michael Michaels, is scheduled for a deposition Wednesday, Lake attorney Brian Watkins said. Michaels reached an out-of-court settlement with Bush's family in April 2007.

Wait a minute. What about Lake? Shouldn't he be deposed first as the plaintiff? Has he been? And if so, is there a problem for him, as a convicted felon, admitting that he was attempting, as I understand the law in California, to do something against California law by offering "cash and gifts" to convince a college athlete to leave school? Just askin'.

Isn't this just one side of the story? And why would Watkins, a San Diego attorney, care whether Michaels speaks to the NCAA or not? What does that have to do with a dispute over $300,000 between some San Diegans?

Was this ever a realistic possibility? Didn't Bush pick up marketing deals whose estimated worth was something in the area of $25 million his first year in the NFL? How could a firm that had never done a deal ever have been in the running here?

But didn't Lake meet with the NCAA investigators for six hours? Should that be mentioned? And could the threat of forcing a Bush deposition that could be released to the NCAA be the real reason for doing this?

So how does that fact involve Lake -- and this deposition? Or this story? Just askin.'

So how exactly would that work? Of the 76 Heisman Trophies, has there ever been one taken back? And haven't more than one Heisman Trophy winner gone off to prison or admitted being on the take in college, something that Bush has not done? And did anything happen to their Heismans? So why, exactly, would it happen here and now? Wouldn't it be completely without precedent? And if so, shouldn't the story say so?

So are you saying that USC might lose its BCS championship? Or is this weasel-worded in a way so as to seem to say that may be a possibility while knowing that the BCS has no mechanism for doing that since it has no direct governing association with the NCAA?

And you say "if USC violated rules." What does that mean? Here we are five years later deposing people to see if something happened between acquaintances from San Diego and your story asks "if USC violated rules" which would seem to imply that USC would have had to know something five years ago that the principals involved don't agree on to this day and we still don't know for sure.

And USC doesn't have subpoena power, as the plaintiff Lake does here thanks to a judge's ruling. So how exactly would USC do that? OK, that's a question for the NCAA, not the writer.

So Lake didn't want confidentiality, or a settlement by impartial arbitration? Why so? Again, just askin'.

So why exactly should we believe this deposition will happen this time? And let me get this straight. You walked out on the Bush people in one deposition and then you expected them to show up at the next one? Might have been a good question to ask the attorney.

But a good lesson for all of us. Be your own editor. At all times. Ask your own questions. Don't assume anyone else has. Chances are they haven't.