Tuesday, Dec 22, 2009
Thursday, Dec 10, 2009
The latest from one of my grad school professors, John Temple, it's "earned a starred review in Publishers Weekly (which called it 'disturbing') and has gotten quite a lot of attention elsewhere as well. It's billed as an indictment of the system. I'm glad to see it's a hardcover, because after it's read, the book might come in handy for propping up one's faith in American criminal justice," says Crime Historian Laura James. Get a copy from Amazon.
Monday, Dec 21, 2009
James Dean Stacy says President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had promised publicly they'd not use the Justice Department to prosecute those who used and distributed medical marijuana in compliance with state laws. But that didn't stop the federal government from arresting him and a host of others in a series of raids in San Diego, coordinated by the local district attorney, this fall. He's asked for a motion to dismiss the indictment, according to San Diego Citybeat, based on the rarely available defense of entrapment by estoppel. "Stacy's motion calls it a 'fundamental notion of fairness: the individual must have fair warning of what conduct the government intends to punish,'" says Citybeat.
Friday, Dec 18, 2009
Last night, while I was being terrifyingly jostled about on the worst plane ride I've ever had, a local and very smart Twitterer (with a very important boss) had an idea: let an independent panel examine the Watchdog's sex offender story and come to a conclusion on what it got right and what it got wrong. A journalistic audit, of sorts.
Thursday, Dec 17, 2009
Citybeat said it's game. VoiceofSanDiego.org has agreed to coordinate. Now, will the Watchdog Institute cooperate?
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.
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.
Saturday, Dec 12, 2009
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.
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.
Recently, the Watchdog
Institute wrote a story published by the Union Tribune about sex offenders and
a state law that restricts where some of them can live. The story's conclusions
were bold and reporters at San Diego Citybeat immediately challenged them as
inaccurate and misleading.
And despite citing top
legal authorities, like the attorney general, the Watchdog Institute and the UT
are seemingly standing by this bungled mess of a story. I've come out strongly
against it, joining Citybeat in trying to hold the Watchdog accountable for the
power it has.
The story has a multitude of problems, starting with its thesis: that 70 percent of sex offenders in San Diego county are violating the law. They aren't, and the Watchdog can't cite anything other than their own interpretation--flawed and in opposition to the only court to rule on the subject--to support their claim. That's bad, irresponsible and unethical journalism.
From a story by the newly minted and (maybe someday, truly tax-exempt) Watchdog Institute that was recently published in the San Diego Union Tribune:
Sensational claim, isn't it? Maybe a bit too sensational, especially since it's not correct. To support that bold assertion, they cite a state law which they then admit doesn't even say to whom it applies, exactly.
Nonetheless, they still included all convicted sex offenders in their alarming statistic.
More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.
For example, the law doesn't specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed.
How does any journalist do that? How do you base an entire story off one statistic that you simultaneously undercut by admitting there's actually a question as to whom the law--your sole basis for that statistic--applies? That's a feat I've never seen accomplished as well as the Watchdog did with this piece.
What resulted was a muddled and misleading piece that was unabashedly picked up by other outlets across the country without as much as a single question as to its veracity. Lorie Hearn, the Watchdog's editor, defends the piece by saying there's "confusion" about the law. There is, and a spokesman for the UT, which published the story, says the same thing. They point out that the story noted that confusion.
So, and this is where I'm really, really dumfounded -- with all that confusion, how do you ethically, morally, accurately, journalistically make a claim like this: "More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks."
You don't. You can't. And what's scary is that no one at the Watchdog or at the UT seems capable of saying, hey, wait, our story doesn't really make sense. On one hand, we're going to be real bold and grab headlines and say 70 percent of sex offenders are committing crimes just by virtue of where they live, but then on the other hand we're going to spend how many ever x column inches telling our readers that, well, actually, the law is too vague and no one really knows how it should currently be enforced or if that 70 percent statistic is really accurate.
Except, that's not true either. In a week, Citybeat associate editor Kelly Davis got this from the people actually charged with enforcing the residency law:
The exact number of county sex offenders subject to the law changes almost daily, but on Dec. 3--when CityBeat asked for a count--that number was 434 (1,297 fewer than the Watchdog Institute reported). Jerome Marsh, a spokesperson with adult parole operations, the arm of CDCR responsible for enforcing Jessica's Law, said that all 434 are monitored by GPS devices--another provision of Jessica's Law--and are in compliance with the law.You don't see that in the Watchdog story. This is someone in authority challenging the story's thesis, its lead, ist main thrust yet, and this is flabbergasting, they stand by their conclusions. As one that UT spokesperson said on Twitter: "In my opinion, this is another example of picking just to pick. The story notes the issues @sdcitybeat raises" and later "the issue is closed."
Could this have been a good story? Yeah, if it were done properly. Could they salvage what little respect they had from area journalists (outside the UT, that is), by honestly examining the challenges made to their story? Yes. Will they? Well, "the issue is closed," according to the UT. We'll see what the Watchdog Institute does.
(FYI: I've written for San Diego Citybeat on more than one occasion, I've not written for the Union Tribune or the Watchdog Institute and its no secret that I've taken issues with things the UT's leadership has said about me)