While right wing pundits will often complain about the liberal bias of the media, media analysts, scholars and critics point to a much more pervasive and structural problem that underlies media reporting. It does not have a left or right component to it. Rather it is a pro-government stance, due to the heavy reliance of the news media on official government sources in order to obtain their stories.
Nowhere do we see this as starkly or with a more candid admission than in this morning’s commentary in the Woodland Daily Democrat written by Jake Dorsey, the associate editor. He argues that journalists have to walk a fine line, especially with the police.
“On a fairly regular basis, we get press releases from the DA. They’re well written, cut-and-dry releases about this burglar getting convicted or that rapist being sentenced to a long time in prison,” he continues. “Pretty important stuff, especially since The Democrat can’t assign a reporter full-time to cover the court system.”
But he acknowledges that they do not get press releases when the DA’s Office loses, though he acknowledges that such news could be just as important. There is never an explanation of why charges were dropped or which charges could not be substantiated in court. On one level, this is a problem because people are often arrested in headlined stories and then their exoneration is not covered unless it is a story big enough to get media coverage on its own.
However, Mr. Dorsey defends the DA’s practice arguing, “Winners write history, and the position of DA is an elected one: Jeff Reisig wants to publicize victories, not failures. However, when you, the reader, see those releases in The Democrat, you’re not getting the full story.”
Herein lies the problem, at least for people like me. I have no problem with the DA sending out press releases trumpeting victory – although I will add, I would hope that within highlighting the positives from their perspective, they at least attempt to paint an accurate picture of what has happened. I have a problem if the news media is unable to get the full and accurate story out.
And I fully acknowledge this is something the news media agonizes over.
Jake Dorsey explains, “We could stop running them, or attach the DA’s byline to the top of each story (something we’ve started doing online). The problem is that we might upset the DA if we do that, and that means access we’ve come to rely on for the truly important cases — murders — disappears, and we’re left out. Which is more important?”
Are you getting it now? They do not want to piss off the people who feed them the stories that they consider truly important cases, so they are willing to cover other cases in a fashion that creates a faulty perception – is that an accurate reading of the situation?
He continues, “Occasionally you’ll see those releases in the paper and online. The arrests are usually for pitiful amounts, and other than getting to see a potential neighbor get booked for having a habit, the stories have minimal effect. It’s necessary to get them in the paper, however, to maintain good relations with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department.”
Here is the key, the relations are usually cool at best and “the department under Ed Prieto has come under regular attack for things it’s associated with in the media (courtroom lockout, Gutierrez shooting, a deputy shooting his own dog at home).”
Then he really spills the beans as to what is driving this. “The most recent, and infuriating, example is the fatal crash in which a local teenager was killed. The crash that killed Crystal Marie Rodriguez happened at about 2:30 a.m. Every major news media outlet had it by around 1 p.m. that same day. Here at The Democrat, two media requests were placed with the CHP for someone from the local CHP office to call us. No call ever came. We had to use The Associated Press story.”
“Now, we could call up their office and tear into them. We run a lot of their releases, after all, and when it counts the most, the thanks we get is no calls back? If we go after them, though, we risk ruining relationships we’ve taken years to build. Is it worth it?” Mr. Dorsey concludes.
From my perspective this is the entire problem, the Democrat and – let us not single them out – every paper has the same issue in that they want access, and local law enforcement, whether they be the police, Sheriff or DA wants to be able to spin their victories and ignore their defeats.
This goes right back to Michael Artz, because what happened there proves Mr. Dorsey’s point. The DA released what can best be described as an incomplete account of the case. I would argue it comes close to an outright fabrication. These things happen all of the time, except the local attorneys do not like to make waves.
But this time the attorney was not a junior level public defender, but private attorney Kathryn Druliner. Ms. Druliner is not going to sit in the back of the Yolo County bus just because the good old boys tell her too. So she complained to the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Bee issued a retraction. Guess what, now the DA’s office is now angry at the Bee for printing a retraction correcting the story. In fact, the retraction was mild. It did not even tell the full story of what really happened, but even that has the DA upset.
The problem here is that because news media lacks the resources or the ingenuity to go out and cover these cases themselves, they have to rely on official sources to provide them with their information. And once that happens, they no longer have the power, the government sources do.
When I started the Vanguard in 2006, my biggest goal was to cover the stories that the other media can’t or won’t, and to give the other side of the story. I don’t always get it right, but I feel what we are doing is important because the people deserve, at the very least, the information in their hands to be able to decide for themselves what really happened and who is telling the truth.
I think there is more, even within budget constraints, that traditional media can do to not become slaves to official sources, but that ball is in their court. I get complaints about the bias of my stories, but fact is that the news media itself is just as biased if not more so, because they rely only on the government to tell you what happened, and the government does not always have an interest in telling you the truth.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
Great reporting! So the DA’s office only sends positive results; this is not news, it’s propaganda.
Yes, bias is inherent in any form of writing; just the choice of one word over the other is a judgement call. The best writers,therefore, avknowledge non-biased reporting is an ideal, not a areality. The best citizens read widely and make their own judgements. This too, is an ideal and, rarely, a reality.
dmg: “Jake Dorsey explains, “We could stop running them, or attach the DA’s byline to the top of each story (something we’ve started doing online). The problem is that we might upset the DA if we do that, and that means access we’ve come to rely on for the truly important cases — murders — disappears, and we’re left out. Which is more important?””
Excuse me, but the media always has access to the courtroom in important cases (Topete case being an extreme example of non-access that was completely improper on the court system’s part), if they choose to cover it. Any newspaper that merely accepts the DA’s version without bothering to check the facts is not worth reading if they do not attribute the article to the DA having written it. It is a matter of priorities – what Dorsey is really saying is that covering trials/court cases is not high on the priority list of the Daily Democrat to investigate. Perhaps he should rethink his priorities and sense of integrity.
dmg: “I get complaints about the bias of my stories, but fact is that the news media itself is just as biased if not more so, because they rely only on the government to tell you what happened, and the government does not always have an interest in telling you the truth.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right…
In my view, we cover the rest of the story.
dmg: “In my view, we cover the rest of the story.”
You “cover the rest of the story” from a very slanted perspective that the DA and court system of Yolo IS corrupt…
Well I think the entire judicial system is flawed, including Yolo. I don’t know that I’d say corrupt. There are problems with it. And I’m trying to highlight some of those problems. I think you at least recognize that this particular article illuminates a problem that is at least somewhat easily fixed.
As a young man I worked on a small newspaper in Southern California, in a very conservative community. Our boss had a simple philosophy about judges, DAs, cops and politicians: They need us more than we need them. We always called ’em the way we saw ’em and sold sold just as much fishwrap as the competition which was known for being a press agency for the county sheriff’s dept.
“I get complaints about the bias of my stories”
You think that might be because you’re usually biased in your reporting?
Maybe the real problem is that the truth is biased sometimes…
Here’s an article I wrote a number of years ago that shows my perspective on this: [quote=https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=428:commentary-when-fair-and-balanced-is-less-accurate&catid=56:davis-enterprise&Itemid=82]When “Fair and Balanced” is Less Accurate[/quote]
“Maybe the real problem is that the truth is biased sometimes…”
I agree with that but what you have a hard time dealing with is that the truth can be conservatively biased sometimes…..
“We could stop running them, or attach the DA’s byline to the top of each story (something we’ve started doing online). The problem is that we might upset the DA if we do that…”
So they are only attaching the DA byline online and not in print? Why might running the DA’s byline upset them? In doing so, they are presenting to the public the accounts of a particular case, as framed by the office of an elected official, which is the right way of going about it IMHO.
Of course these accounts contain omissions and are perhaps completely biased, which is problematic. The only reason I can think the DA would be upset about the byline is that the “story” no longer appears as such, it appears as what it is…a press release. I think the byline of “Democrat Staff” gives off the impression that the journalists covered the case and are presenting their findings or balanced coverage to the public. In other words, it does not come across as written and phrased by the DA’s office, which all these are.
Even if the local authorities get upset about the paper running with the agencies byline and not “Democrat Staff,” the fact of the matter is, for example, these agencies (especially those headed by elected officials) will always want to tell the public about all the good they have done…it’s their job security.
I also think that by running the DA (or other government entity) byline it makes the Democrat (and other media outlets) look as though they are not doing as much work, for they rely on many of these press releases to fill their pages. So, they benefit from not running the government entity’s byline because it makes it look like they are covering more than they actually are.
David, “In my view, we cover the rest of the story.”
Which says what about the stories covered only by you?
The rest of the story meaning, that your government may not be doing as good a job as they claim.
“I agree with that but what you have a hard time dealing with is that the truth can be conservatively biased sometimes….. “
I think people who criticize my coverage of employee compensation issues as one example, may disagree.
David, “The rest of the story meaning, that your government may not be doing as good a job as they claim.”
Okay. I couldn’t find Dorsey’s article on the Democrat’s website. Where did you find it?
Also, do you know why the DA’s office upset about the byline issue?
Here: link ([url]http://www.dailydemocrat.com/guestopinions/ci_16070762[/url])
I don’t know, that seems strange. I think your explanation is closer to the truth.
David,
Thanks for the link. That’s the only explanation I could think of. I mean, at the end of the day, the DA gets to present what he wishes to the public, so why the uproar?
“I think people who criticize my coverage of employee compensation issues as one example, may disagree.”
So you’re saying that fiscal responsibility is only a conservative issue?
This DA has always run his office by threats, intimidation and fear. He uses the same tactics on the police, his Dep DA’s and other county officials. Now we see that Mr. Reisig, being the bully type of person he is, uses the same threats and tactics with the press. Be nice to me and print my lies or I will not give you anything on big important cases? How can this be seen as a free press?
People see this more and more and thanks to alternative media, like here and others, it is slowly being exposed.
It is disgraceful that an elected official would engage in controlling and threatening to cut off the press if they do not print his positive propaganda. With this attitude from the papers, if they are scared to get cut off for not printing all the BS the DA gives them, can anyone believe that the press would even begin to report a scandal where the DA would looks bad? So if the DA gets caught hiding evidence, would the papers be afraid to print it? IF the DA was caught lying about the gang problems, would the paper be scared to report it? It DA Reisig engaged in smear tactics to those that oppose him, would any paper dare report it?
**shakes his head that no will stand up to this type unethical behavior constantly displayed by DA Jeff Willard Reisig.
Jake Dorsey wrote, ““We don’t get press releases on the cases the DA’s Office loses, though, which can be just as important. No statements on which charges were dropped, either, or which charges could not be substantiated in court.”
Twice now, both the editor and associate editor of the Democrat have failed to offer up any solutions to this problem. As I’ve suggested before, why doesn’t the Democrat Staff take measures to better the lines of communication between themselves and the Public Defenders Office? The Democrat has taken great efforts to reach out to and train local law enforcement agencies how to effectively write and issue press release, but they cannot do the same with the PD’s Office? Why?
Perhaps doing this would allow the public to hear, from the mouth of the public defender, about those cases in which the DA’s Office has “lost”, which charges a defendant was acquitted of or were dropped.
Roger, “It is disgraceful that an elected official would engage in controlling and threatening to cut off the press if they do not print his positive propaganda.”
Has there been any confirmation that the DA has threatened to cut the local papers off if they don’t go along with the program or is the local media so reliant on these press releases that they are too afraid to do anything that may lessen the flow of information as they need that info to fill their papers (IOW, Dorsey assumes they’ll be upset)?
Roger, ” It DA Reisig engaged in smear tactics to those that oppose him, would any paper dare report it?”
Did the paper not cover the “smearing” of those who “oppose” him?
To me the uproar is more about the papers, but there’s also part of me that has a problem with a misleading press release, particularly from a public official representing “the state” and “the people” in criminal matters.
Great idea about the Dem doing press releases from the Public Defender Office. Hopefully, the Pub Def is not worried about the DA being mad at them.
As for proof that DA Reisig threatened to cut them off, do this this fear is just made up or someone is just thinking this with no reasons or justification? I doubt it. I would bet there were many private communications that gave good reason for the paper to believe this and if that if that is not enough, lets try this. Just a guess, but I bet the DA press releases are sent to the Vanguard? ummm wonder why?
Roger Rabbit writes: “Great idea about the Dem doing press releases from the Public Defender Office. Hopefully, the Pub Def is not worried about the DA being mad at them.”
Barry “The Fish” Melton is the Yolo County Public Defender. He was a huge radical back in the day…guitar player with Country Joe and The Fish (“One, Two, Three What Are We Fightin’ For…” “Gimme an F, U, C,…” etc.) in the Sixties. His parents were heavy-duty Socialists or something very leftist in Brooklyn when he was growing up. Street fighters….Hard to imagine The Fish feeling intimidated by a little ol’ country prosecutor…haha. But, the times they are a’changin’…
David, “To me the uproar is more about the papers, but there’s also part of me that has a problem with a misleading press release, particularly from a public official representing “the state” and “the people” in criminal matters.”
Well, it seems like the most recent release wasn’t quite forthcoming, based on the accounts of others involved. I don’t expect the DA’s Office to include the acquittals or losses in their press releases (would you do that?), which I guess doesn’t always paint an accurate picture of the events.
I was referring to the uproar in response to the Democrat running the DA’s Office byline.
Brian, “Barry “The Fish” Melton is the Yolo County Public Defender.”
Not any more, Tracy Olson is the Yolo County PD.
Roger, “As for proof that DA Reisig threatened to cut them off, do this this fear is just made up or someone is just thinking this with no reasons or justification? I doubt it.”
Well, I am going to lean towards believing it’s the Democrat management who is fearful not because the DA has threatened them, but because they’ve become so reliant on their government connections/press releases that severing their ties could seriously hurt the paper.
Not too long ago, Dorsey wrote an article detailing the actions of a Public Defender investigator during a trial involving a YC probation officer (defendant). The investigator, who was not officially involved in this case, took the defendant (his friend) out through a special area to avoid the media, but he was not allowed to do this and that was an abuse of his authority. The investigator also flipped the reporter off when he was trying to take his photo.
Anyway, Dorsey went on to describe how he and Smith believed it wasn’t in their best interest to totally slam the investigator or PD’s Office, because it would hurt their relationship and subsequently their paper. My point is this: do you think Tracy Olson has threatened the Democrat’s editors or is this fear more likely rooted in their being overly reliant on government entities feeding them stories they need to fill space?
I am beginning to think that I am the only attorney who was both a deputy d.a. and a defense attorney, although I know it is not true. The reason the public defenders are not as vocal as the district attorneys is that the minute a deputy district attorney leaves that office and becomes a defense attorney the courtroom staff almost universally treat the person (once loved) as a creep who “went to the dark side”. When I (the attorney who defended the Artz case) spoke to the Bee about the retraction and told them all they had to do to corroborate the truth or falsity of the DA press release was to obtain a verdict form (one page document out of the court file, they agreed. The editor then went on to tell me what I already knew. The court staff sticks with the D.A. staff and does everything possible to make it difficult for the media to get access to these documents. The scenerio goes like this, “oh, the files out…” “Oh, we are just closing for break”. “Oh, that document is missing….” Anything to make an understaffed media give up.
Which presents a huge problem for us, we often need to get additional material from the files and that sometimes takes a week to get. So we end up running stories sometimes on cases that ended over a week ago.
Kathryn,
“I am beginning to think that I am the only attorney who was both a deputy d.a. and a defense attorney, although I know it is not true.”
You mean in the state or on this blog? If the latter were what you’re referring to, I wouldn’t doubt it, which puts you in a unique position to comment on these matters, IMHO. If you don’t mind me asking, why did you leave one for the other?
“The reason the public defenders are not as vocal as the district attorneys is that the minute a deputy district attorney leaves that office and becomes a defense attorney the courtroom staff almost universally treat the person (once loved) as a creep who ‘went to the dark side’.”
I’m not following your here. What is the nexus re: transition from DDA to DPD and the DPD’s not being as vocal as the DDA’s? Perhaps such a occupational change is common in Sac County, but I think very few, if any, Yolo County DDA’s have left to work as Yolo County DPD’s in the recent past. Therefor, I’m not really sure that precautionary measure you mention (re: dpd’s not being as vocal because…), although I’m not entirely sure what it is, would be warranted.
“The editor then went on to tell me what I already knew. The court staff sticks with the D.A. staff and does everything possible to make it difficult for the media to get access to these documents.”
So the Sac Bee editor is claiming the Yolo County Superior Court staff is protecting the Yolo County DA’s office from further media scrutiny? Is there really any proof beyond those anecdotes, though? I understand that DA and court staff do know each other well and work closely with one another, but does that mean they would go so far as to shine on the media in an attempt to protect the DA?
dgm: “Maybe the real problem is that the truth is biased sometimes…”
Huh? Def’n of truth:”the state of being the case: FACT” Webster’s Dictionary. Am I missing something here?
roger rabbit: “It is disgraceful that an elected official would engage in controlling and threatening to cut off the press if they do not print his positive propaganda.”
It is disgraceful that a newspaper would not attribute a DA press release to the actual author who wrote it, and try an pass it off as their own.
sm: “Perhaps doing this would allow the public to hear, from the mouth of the public defender, about those cases in which the DA’s Office has “lost”, which charges a defendant was acquitted of or were dropped.”
The PD has to work closely with the DA to get the best deal for the defendant. The PD is certainly going to be very careful about how s/he handles his relationship with the DA for the sake of defendants.
sm: “Has there been any confirmation that the DA has threatened to cut the local papers off if they don’t go along with the program or is the local media so reliant on these press releases that they are too afraid to do anything that may lessen the flow of information as they need that info to fill their papers (IOW, Dorsey assumes they’ll be upset)?”
My guess is that the local newspapers find the DA press releases a convenience to lean on rather than taking the effort at due diligence. It is certainly simple enough to be honest about who wrote the article, and an ethical necessity – a “positive” relationship with the DA notwithstanding.
Superfluous Man: Intelligent questions: I left the Sacto County DA’s Office because my husband was one of 5 candidates (the only one endorsed by the DA’s assn and all law enforcement)to run for DA againt incumband Steve White. The office got quite toxic and my mother had Alzheimers and I was in a child molest/abuse special team and could not handle any more stress. I did 2 years of civil practice and was bored to tears. The only way into a courtroom was to open my own office and do cirminal defense (I was too senior to do public defender work). And yes, it is more than mere anectodes about the press or anyone who is opposed to the DA being blocked from the court file. As my very smart formerly Russian secretary said to me about the DA’s and the court staff, “they are all paid out of the same budget”.
And if any of you out there think that the DA in Yolo or Sacramento are not ruthless (or many politicians, really) to save their own jobs, re-think it. What we really have to think about is that the DA wants the ink of the press, we should require our press, in these tough budget times, to make the DA show the proof, i.e. the verdict form. If they had done that in the Artz case the false information would not have been published and the DA would not have achieved their free and false publicity. Oh, for the days of Edward R. Murrow!
[quote]dgm: “Maybe the real problem is that the truth is biased sometimes…”
Huh? Def’n of truth:”the state of being the case: FACT”[/quote]
The idea of balance in the news media is that they get one side to talk to them and then the other. Sometimes that actually distorts the truth may not be in the middle of the two views but in fact, one side may be right and the other side wrong and therefore by presenting a “balanced” article, you are actually presenting a misleading story.
dmg: “The idea of balance in the news media is that they get one side to talk to them and then the other. Sometimes that actually distorts the truth may not be in the middle of the two views but in fact, one side may be right and the other side wrong and therefore by presenting a “balanced” article, you are actually presenting a misleading story.”
OK, I get what you are getting at now…
Oh, thanks Kathryn and thanks for explaining how you got from DDA to private defense.
“The only way into a courtroom was to open my own office and do cirminal defense (I was too senior to do public defender work).”
Really, too senior to join a PD’s office. How do you figure? Seems like there are plenty of “senior” DPD’s out there.
“And yes, it is more than mere anectodes about the press or anyone who is opposed to the DA being blocked from the court file.”
And this goes for courts in Sacramento County as well or does that include all superior courts? I digress, what is the incentive for the court staff to protect the DA’s office unless they are otherwise told to do so by county counsel? Is it just a buddy-buddy thing, in your opinion? Has anyone brought action against the court staff? Is there a similar dynamic on the federal level re; court staff and AUSA’s?
“As my very smart formerly Russian secretary said to me about the DA’s and the court staff, ‘they are all paid out of the same budget’.”
Doesn’t the Public Defender’s office get paid out of the same budget too? In fact, I think their budget relies almost entirely on the county, whereas the DA’s office (at least in Yolo) relies on proportionally less than the PD. I could be wrong, but that was my impression. Does getting paid out of the same budget necessarily equate to corruption or the circling of the wagons?
“And if any of you out there think that the DA in Yolo or Sacramento are not ruthless (or many politicians, really) to save their own jobs, re-think it. What we really have to think about is that the DA wants the ink of the press, we should require our press, in these tough budget times, to make the DA show the proof, i.e. the verdict form.”
I will not doubt that reelection is a major (if not the) point of interest for some of these DA’s. I find it interesting that DA Reisig has opted to issue so many press releases. As I see it, doing so illuminates his office and that light exposes things that he might not want the public to be privy to (ie Artz case).
DA’s rarely get challenged and when they do, those opposing the incumbent usually don’t succeed. So, why the need to constantly seek ink in the name of job security when you know that your position will almost certainly be secure? All this “scandal” people have referred to has happened in the years and months leading up to the deadline to file this year, as a challenger to the DA, yet no one took him on. What’s he got to be worried about? Perhaps he’s interested in a higher office?
I agree with regards to the press needing to do more fact checking or at the very least running the byline “DA’s Office” instead of “Staff.” I don’t understand why Associate Editor Dorsey is afraid the DA’s office would be upset with that. I think they have become too reliant on the hand fed stories, via press releases, the County’s various government entities give them. So much, in fact, that they censor themselves as to maintain or better their relations with said entities.
That seems backwards to me and it might be time for them to reflect upon their principles and acknowledge that their obligation is to the public first, NOT the government.
“I was too senior to do public defender work.” I hope you’ll expand on this, or clarify it. It implies that you see public defender attorneys as too young and inexperienced for other work–and yourself as someone who wouldn’t lower herself to that level. I don’t think this is the point you were trying to make. I thought that to be a public defender–beyond basic qualifications–is seeing the work as a special calling and that one has to overlook low pay and comparatively limited potential.
ERM, “My guess is that the local newspapers find the DA press releases a convenience to lean on rather than taking the effort at due diligence. It is certainly simple enough to be honest about who wrote the article, and an ethical necessity – a “positive” relationship with the DA notwithstanding.”
Elaine, didn’t notice that you had responded to my post earlier. I agree with your comments. What I still don’t understand is the fear Dorsey has that by running with the DA byline, the result may be an upset DA. Why would they, seems like a pretty fair alternative to me. I like Dorsey and think he tries his best, but that’s pretty ridiculous. Why must they be handled with kid gloves?
And SM, what’s their alternative? Not dealing with the Daily Democrat and ignoring the city of Woodland? Doesn’t make a lot of sense (plus you can get the press releases on line which is what I have to do because the DA won’t send them directly to me).
JustSaying, “I thought that to be a public defender–beyond basic qualifications–is seeing the work as a special calling and that one has to overlook low pay and comparatively limited potential.”
I think that there is probably a common mindset and general enthusiasm to defend the indigent, but it’s a tough job and not for everyone.
What to you is considered “low pay” and what do you mean by “limited potential?” A more senior DPD in Yolo County makes, for example, DPD IV (min 4 yrs exp) 99-121K. A DPD V (Supervisor/min exp 5yrs) earns 125-145k. Not exactly scrapping by, but not exactly vacation home in the south of France either.
Sorry, My bad. The Fish had been such a solid institution for so many years I just assumed…But, if this kinda media incompetency stuff had been aired when he was in power, I bet he’d’a offered dueling Pub. Defender press releases.
Superfluous Man
09/14/10 – 08:29 PM
…
Brian, “Barry “The Fish” Melton is the Yolo County Public Defender.”
Not any more, Tracy Olson is the Yolo County PD.
[quote]”To me the uproar is more about the papers, but there’s also part of me that has a problem with a misleading press release.”[/quote] The uproar here is aimed in the right direction…at editors who don’t attribute media handouts to their source. Regardless of the reasons, the practice should be unacceptable for stations, papers, blogs or magazines. (Anyway, there’s been enough carping about the DA’s misleading news release in earlier stories.)
Mr. Dorsey’s op-ed, or whatever, is a most embarrassing account of the state of local journalism today. I don’t see the Democrat’s practice as much different, however, than your use of video about Lt. Daniel Stroski five days ago. I thought the video raised questions about what he meant, and I ran it three times to try understand what it really was all about.
So I tried to track down the complete meeting video without success. That raised questions about how the video could get edited with graphics added and into your hands within 24 hours of the meeting. Later came biotechharm’s insistence that your report that: [quote]”(Lt. Stroski) responded to a question apparently from member Lilia Garcia….Apparently she asked about his knowledge of employee rights, to which he responded that he did not know anything.”[/quote] was not accurate, based on biotechharm’s personal observation at the Commission meeting. Was the clip misleading (like the edited Shirley Sherrod video the was produced to support a political point of view)?
You wrote that: “His comments were captured on You Tube.” More accurately, [u]someone posted[/u] the video on YouTube. But, who? Then someone promptly gave you a tip that it was waiting for your use in The Vanguard. By going to YouTube to watch the clip, one finds that it was posted by “laborvideo,” which has 86 other videos–many of them openly aimed at discrediting the California Fraud Assessment Commission and attempting to stop funding of the County District Attorney Workers Comp Fraud Units.
Who, or what, is behind the editing and distributing of the video you used for the Lt. Stroski post, David? What are their objectives in producing these slanted videos? Why would you post it without attribution or credit? Why would you proceed without following up to determine whether your impressions were correct about what “apparently” happened. Why would you use it to question whether Lt. Stroski “can truly ascertain whether someone is committing a fraud” without you doing any more reporting? I can’t imagine you didn’t know the source of this “video news release.” But, you used it “as is” without informing us of the source. And you added your “apparently” mistaken notion of what happened.
So, there you are. It must a little difficult to be so critical of the [u]Democrat[/u] editor when you both deal with material “donated” by people who have self-interested positions to promote. Both of you don’t take the time to verify the facts. Both of you purposely fail to indicate from where the handouts come, for whatever reasons, and give the handouts credence by publishing them. Jim Smith pleads economics; I’d guess that you have a different justification. The sins are fairly equal.
Final test question–Who promised on June 20, 2010?: “I may disagree with the editorials in the local newspapers and critique them, but I am done criticizing the local media.”
I can answer your last question: “Final test question–Who promised on June 20, 2010?: “I may disagree with the editorials in the local newspapers and critique them, but I am done criticizing the local media.” Things changed with what happened in the Artz trial. It was too egregious to overlook.
In terms of the video, I guess I view a video differently from a press release. I think that was pretty much his entire comments that day anyway, so I’m not sure it is the same thing. I view that video the way people viewed the George Allen Macaca incident in 2006. The Macaca incident was filmed by an intern who was supporting the opposition. But regardless of who filmed it, George Allen still said it. And in neither case was the video edited or the comments taken out of context.
On the other hand, the press release is not a video or anything that resembles a “record” it is just the opinion of the issuer.
Superfluous Man:
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. I absolutely did not mean to demean the public defender jobs. When I first went out on my own I only did indigent defense work through the alternate public defender panel in Sacramento and some in neighboring counties. I still do indigent work on the Federal Panel. It paid very, very little and I found it extremely rewarding. Still today, 14 years later, I do pro bono work and charge much less than my contemporaries for my work. I find it exhausting but rewarding– getting older and tired of running into the buzzsaw.
I merely meant that the new hires at the public defenders office usually are kids right out of law school so that the attorneys can move up as the older attorneys retire.
As to your question re whether the Feds circle their wagons to keep info from the Defense the answer is no. All the Federal information is on the internet on a system called PACER. Everyone has equal access to the information and all filed documents are scanned and entered immediately. Further, I do not perceive any different treatment by the US Marshalls or the court staff to defense attorney or AUSAs.
With respect to my former secretary’s comment about da’s and court staff getting paid out of the same budget– that was her comment and kind of the Russian thinking (all government is corrupt). My guess as to why the court staff at the county level sides with the DA is that they just see so many guilty people coming through the courts every day that they get jaded. They believe everyone who gets that far is guilty. There is really no presumption of innocence. They think if someone is not convicted that some sleazy defense attorney fooled the jury. I think this belief is wrong but sincere.
Just Saying: ” Later came biotechharm’s insistence that your report that: “(Lt. Stroski) responded to a question apparently from member Lilia Garcia….Apparently she asked about his knowledge of employee rights, to which he responded that he did not know anything.”
was not accurate, based on biotechharm’s personal observation at the Commission meeting.
Actually, biotechharm was incorrect. Biotechharm kept insisting Garcia did not ask Stroski the question, when in fact it shows right on the videotape that she did ask Stroski.
Kathryn,
Thanks for clarifying your comment.
“I merely meant that the new hires at the public defenders office usually are kids right out of law school so that the attorneys can move up as the older attorneys retire.”
Well, I think you’re right in that, in a normal economy, the offices are continuously hiring entry-level prosecutors and public defenders. I do believe they hire outside for senior positions from time to time, but you’re right about younger attorneys usually filling the vacancies which are left by the elder ones.
“All the Federal information is on the internet on a system called PACER. Everyone has equal access to the information and all filed documents are scanned and entered immediately.”
That’s convenient. I suppose the state has an excuse as to why they cannot do the same?
“My guess as to why the court staff at the county level sides with the DA is that they just see so many guilty people coming through the courts every day that they get jaded. They believe everyone who gets that far is guilty. There is really no presumption of innocence. They think if someone is not convicted that some sleazy defense attorney fooled the jury. I think this belief is wrong but sincere.”
I guess that’s one possible explanation (assuming that they actually do this). However, exactly how much involvement are they having in these cases? Are they truly familiar enough with each and every case to have come to a sound conclusion as to whom is truly innocent or guilty? I understand people become jaded, personally, I don’t find that to be a reasonable excuse, but I understand it happens. I think there not being a presumption of innocence is a problem, not just among the court staff, unfortunately.
With all due respect, you never explained your comment regarding public defenders not being as vocal as DDA’s because when DDA’s leave for the defense, they are perceived as scum by the court staff. I’m just trying to understand what you meant by that.