Investigative news going too far? (dangerous, husband, interest)

[weaverra]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

A certain investigative reporter for one of the local tv stations just preened on air like a vulture with a piece of rotten flesh in his beak when he discovered that a magistrate up for review in Huntsville because of drawing a gun in a parking lot had - TWENTY years ago - been part of a drunken debacle with others in his peer group, when police investigation only went back ten years to insure the individual had character.

This station HAD been awarded a commendation. Apparently, wherever that award came from, those responsible must have left.

What I now want to know, as part of MY deep investigation into news media reporting, is if this particular investigative reporter had wet his bed twenty years ago or skipped school.

I understand deep discovery. I understand the idea of making sure relevant stuff doesn't get swept under a carpet. I also understand cub reporters in search of cookies from bosses trying to make a name for themselves by going beyond the pale.

Were I station manager, this cub would be severely cuffed and given a leave of absence to take time to consider the difference between real reporting and sensationalist dredging up of irrelevant BS.

I had previously had hopes the kid would be an asset to the community. I no longer want to even bother with his "reporting," nor am I interested in following the station, since the one weathercaster who had a measured and intelligent forecast has retired.

If you actually read what happened in that incident you would be appalled. He should have never been in law enforcement. The ONLY reason he could not be charged with rape is due to Utah state law. The victim couldn’t recall that night and there were no other witnesses. He essentially admitted to inappropriate contact with the highly intoxicated female. He was in his 30’s working for the Secret Service while she was still in college. He also was supposed to have worked at a law enforcement agency in Alabama after this incident.


https://www.deseret.com/2002/12/20/1...arty?_amp=true

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/201...fter-olympics/

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by weaverra

If you actually read what happened in that incident you would be appalled. He should have never been in law enforcement. The ONLY reason he could not be charged with rape is due to Utah state law. The victim couldn’t recall that night and there were no other witnesses. He essentially admitted to inappropriate contact with the highly intoxicated female. He was in his 30’s working for the Secret Service while she was still in college. He also was supposed to have worked at a law enforcement agency in Alabama after this incident.


https://www.deseret.com/2002/12/20/1...arty?_amp=true

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/201...fter-olympics/

No, I doubt I would have been "appalled." I would have been concerned, I would have looked for an immediate shift in behavior away from such stuff, but if you castigate every male who has ever had contact with a drunk female, you have never been to a bar, never had a female approach you as a male with (ahem) on her mind, never been in a questionable workplace Christmas party or other get-together.

People are responsible for their own actions. I have never imbibed to the point that I could not remember. I have never intentionally put myself in situations that could end up biting me in the butt. I have made mistakes that I deeply regret, and those both taught me lessons and plague my conscience even to today.

People make mistakes. Sometimes they make really stupid mistakes. Sometimes they not only get jobs in law enforcement - sometimes they get elected to the highest job in the nation. Sometimes they become reporters who have not a clue as to what is appropriate digging and what is crude mudslinging that has ZERO benefit to the public.

[LivingLikeAGradStudent]

Sensationalism, mudslinging, irrelevant -- these are terms used be people wholly unfamiliar what newsgathering is. And to suggest that the station leadership somehow wasn't aware of this investigation strains any credibility. None of this is personal, so let's resolve to not take it personally.

[pathrunner]

I listen to the weather and then turn it off. Jessica Camuto and Danielle Dozier.

Going up the chain of command it isn't just the reporter, the writers, the news director, the station manager... it's corporate influence and likely local and even national politics to blame.

I do like Christine Killimayer and Jerry Hayes and will leave them on in the background while doing other things. Don't blame them, they just read it. As previously mentioned elsewhere, I only get WHNT because I refuse to pay for expensive TV providers though I once did.

I agree this "cub" reporter in question was given an assignment over which he had little control.

I've noticed the more polished reporters quickly move on. Or perhaps they are short-term interns. /shrug

[RocketDawg]

Huntsville/Decatur/Florence is the 79th largest DMA (television market) out of 210, which is probably medium sized - certainly not small with almost 1 million people over 12. https://krgspec.com/MarketSearch.aspx?DMAID=327 It's big enough to have competent anchors, reporters, and meteorologists.

List of DMAs: https://outdoormediabuyers.com/list-of-u-s-dmas/

[animalcrazy]

Originally Posted by weaverra

If you actually read what happened in that incident you would be appalled. He should have never been in law enforcement. The ONLY reason he could not be charged with rape is due to Utah state law. The victim couldn’t recall that night and there were no other witnesses. He essentially admitted to inappropriate contact with the highly intoxicated female. He was in his 30’s working for the Secret Service while she was still in college. He also was supposed to have worked at a law enforcement agency in Alabama after this incident.


https://www.deseret.com/2002/12/20/1...arty?_amp=true

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/201...fter-olympics/

That was my question. What kind of incident and how serious was it. I don't think a reporter outing this kind of behavior is out of line with anyone in the public eye. If some politician was torturing and murdering cats in his youth I would want to know, and would not vote for someone like that.

You are fair game is you're in the public eye and hiding despicable behavior in your youth or one day past the ten year rule should not apply. It has nothing to do with left or right and everything to do with the kind of character you posses. There is no time line on that.

[pathrunner]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

A certain investigative reporter for one of the local tv stations just preened on air like a vulture with a piece of rotten flesh in his beak when he discovered that a magistrate up for review in Huntsville because of drawing a gun in a parking lot had - TWENTY years ago - been part of a drunken debacle with others in his peer group, when police investigation only went back ten years to insure the individual had character.

This station HAD been awarded a commendation. Apparently, wherever that award came from, those responsible must have left.

What I now want to know, as part of MY deep investigation into news media reporting, is if this particular investigative reporter had wet his bed twenty years ago or skipped school.

I understand deep discovery. I understand the idea of making sure relevant stuff doesn't get swept under a carpet. I also understand cub reporters in search of cookies from bosses trying to make a name for themselves by going beyond the pale.

Were I station manager, this cub would be severely cuffed and given a leave of absence to take time to consider the difference between real reporting and sensationalist dredging up of irrelevant BS.

I had previously had hopes the kid would be an asset to the community. I no longer want to even bother with his "reporting," nor am I interested in following the station, since the one weathercaster who had a measured and intelligent forecast has retired.

I do agree that some idiotic foolish thing that someone - anyone - did in their youth should be reported accurately, not sensationally and depending upon the circumstances should be forgiven or "chalked up to youth." We've all done asinine things in our lives, especially during youth.

I still have not been forgiven and am still 30-40-50 years later being smeared for being different than my family, and making certain mistakes that only hurt me and no one else. So yeah, if what this magistrate did or participated in wasn't all that bad it should be forgiven.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the segment so I can't judge it. Perhaps I'll find it on the station's YouTube channel or website, or someone can provide a link because I am curious about the tone and content of the reporting. Until I can see it for myself, I will take harry's word for it. Sounds like a smear job by opponents.

I think I might know which station it is, somebody who retired about a year ago and was replaced by a female?

[harry chickpea]

I'm thinking that pointing out the station at this point is not relevant, as the subject is more about how news is handled generally around here.

I've had a more extensive discussion with a retired city employee, in that the hiring of the employee by the city was a questionable decision, less related to the individual than hiring practices at the time. The way the reporter had framed the story it was mud slinging at the individual, but a related story about hiring practices might actually have served public good.

I was told that acceptance to a magistrate position in the judicial system means, among other things, that the employee would have had to pass a polygraph. Is it possible that questions in that exam laid to rest concerns, or was it that the review of the test just rubber-stamped?

[pathrunner]

Agree with your first and second paragraphs.

In your third paragraph you bring up additional information and I wonder whether the question was asked in a polygraph and rubber stamped. If asked and he failed, would it truly have killed his chances or did whomever simply rubber stamp it "in case?" Again, I don't know the circumstances of the original incident from which this scurrilous report stemmed.

Edit to add: I found some articles online about this incident/issue. It seems some people think it's equivalent to a "public intoxication" charge.

I don't know.... was it more the tone of the reporting that bothered you, or simply the fact that it was reported on?

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by pathrunner

Agree with your first and second paragraphs.

In your third paragraph you bring up additional information and I wonder whether the question was asked in a polygraph and rubber stamped. If asked and he failed, would it truly have killed his chances or did whomever simply rubber stamp it "in case?" Again, I don't know the circumstances of the original incident from which this scurrilous report stemmed.

Edit to add: I found some articles online about this incident/issue. It seems some people think it's equivalent to a "public intoxication" charge.

I don't know.... was it more the tone of the reporting that bothered you, or simply the fact that it was reported on?

There were a few things that bothered me. Two big ones -

Relevance: The bringing up of an event twenty years ago that did not directly relate to the news event at hand was a non-sequitur at best.

Mud-slinging and implicit pre-judging: Bringing up long-past events isn't news, that wanders into de-facto editorializing.

Both are failures to follow basic precepts of journalism. Talk radio has already destroyed factual reporting under an "entertainment" protective clause. Social media is a disaster at reporting. Without pushback, TV news will fall deeper into those holes.