Trial and Error
The Watchdog Institute: judge, jury and...

I really hope no one finishes that sentence, because I really, really don't like where it could go. You know the story, the maybe soon-to-be tax-exempt Watchdog Institute, which some believe is really just an arm of the Union Tribune, published a sensational and completely incorrect mess of a story about sex offenders in San Diego at the end of November.

The Watchdog claimed that 70 percent of registered sex offenders in the county are violating residency restrictions in a state law. That's a serious charge, and, as we've seen, is wrong. No sex offenders currently subject to the law are in violation, but the Watchdog didn't care. They've decided--an ostensible journalism organization--that they're free to be the judge and jury in regard to over 1,000 residents of San Diego. In a news story. Without a single source outside themselves to back up the claim.

In our story examining Jessica's Law, we took a literal interpretation of the law and stated that only the California Department of Corrections was enforcing it. We understand CityBeat writer Kelly Davis disagrees with that premise and we respect her right to voice that opinion. However, we will not be issuing a correction because we do not believe one is warranted.

They took a "literal interpretation" of the law. Maybe someday, I can sit down with Ms. Hearn -- the Watchdog's editor and the person who made this statement -- and tell her what's wrong with "literal interpretation" of that particular law and how their "interpretation" isn't actually "literal" but reading more into it than is actually there. But Citybeat's editor, Dave Rolland, really gets to the heart of the matter in his response.

More importantly, though, I think you still misunderstand what your story got wrong. You say you interpreted the law literally. I'm not sure what gives a journalism organization the right to interpret laws in such a way that is inconsistent with the California Penal Code. 

Here's the bottom line. To date, we'e not seen one source to support the Watchdog's "literal interpretation" of the law, but on the contrary, we've seen source after source after source say they got it wrong. If such serious challenges can be raised about a story, then obviously, something didn't go right with it. And actually, no one is enforcing the law the way they claim -- again, in a news story, not an opinion piece. But, that doesn't seem bother them.

Why should it, when they've made themselves the sole arbiters of who's violating the law and who isn't? All hail the Watchdog, new overlords of San Diego county.
- Justin McLachlan
Related Posts with Thumbnails


Comments

2 Comments

scott

These reporters and editors at the Union Tribune, er I mean Watchdog Institute, are either:
1) total idiots who are unable to see the terribly misleading way in which they've spun their story (and gotten facts wrong)
or 2) just feel that now they've got to dig their heels in to try and preserve any journalistic integrity they feel they possess.

Either way, they don't inspire confidence, in this reader at least, in their ability to provide "deep, thoughtful, data-driven journalism" as is stated on their webpage.

scott | December 17, 2009 10:35 AM
Justin McLachlan

A mark of a good journalist is being able to take responsibility for
and to correct mistakes.

Justin McLachlan | December 17, 2009 2:15 PM