It certainly was not a "quiet week in Lake Wobegone" these last few weeks in the Mankato region.
We have an sheriff's deputy shooting a man in Kasota after a confrontation. About a week later, we have two dead bodies in the St. Peter area, a murder-suicide that appears to involve two men and one woman. A four-year old child was left at lake dock and not found until 11 p.m. at night, bitten by bugs and traumatized.
We doubt the Bureau of Criminal Investigation has been this busy in one county in this short of time period ever.
When you're the messenger in these situations, the anger is aimed at you, no matter how unjustified. We've taken it from all sides.
We're in the classic Catch 22 with these situations. Usually, law enforcement cannot give a lot of detail in the timeline newspapers operate under. We have to go with what we've got, however incomplete, to serve our readers who want to know 1: Are they safe 2: What is being done about the people who committed these violent and deadly crimes.
Vitriolic and in my opinion unreasonable expectations from so-called friends of law enforcement who can't face us through anything but e-mails, expect us to say nothing until police have completed their investigation. That' s just not going to happen, my friends.
We have to remember, the public safety is served when the public has information. We don't need ALL the information on any given case any time. But we do NEED the BASIC INFORMATION (that required by law) and we will do anything necessary come hell or high water to get that. We hope law enforcement understands that. We know our readers expect that.
At a very minimum people need to know if they are safe, or if the perpetrator is still on the lose. I commend the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for giving us those facts on the St. Peter murder suicide as soon as possible. The agency said in a statement that "the public is not in danger. No suspects are being sought." That tells people, it's a murder suicide, even if the BCA can't confirm that yet with forensics.
In the Kasota shooting, the information has not been quite as good. We think law enforcement could do a lot to quell some of the anger and unease in the community be releasing a little more information on the details. So far, what has been reported by witnesses came from friends or acquaintances of the victim. We know that information may not be the whole picture, but again, we have to go with the information we have.
In this case, a little information may be all people have to go on. And we know people act irrationally when they only have one side of the story.
So in the large context of public safety, a little more information could go a long way.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Kasota shooting erupts in comments
The Kasota shooting story has dominated the news and this emotional story has stoked comments on both sides that pretty much overloaded our "story comment" system.
I've suspended the function for a while, so no story comments on this subject will be published. The volume and the content of the comments were problematic. Too much anger on both sides. We'll see what prevails as the details become more clear.
Disappointing the BCA can't give more details. This would "balance" the story coming out. I know it's not their job to balance the story, but it's our job to put as much of the story out there as we can, especially in a shooting case. But we can only print the facts that are told to us. We can't make them up.
In the alternative, if police can't give facts regards investigation, we cannot and will not refrain from publishing anything. Some people want us to refrain from publishing anything until all the facts are known. That's not realistic and holding off publishing news is not what newspapers do. Stay tuned.
I've suspended the function for a while, so no story comments on this subject will be published. The volume and the content of the comments were problematic. Too much anger on both sides. We'll see what prevails as the details become more clear.
Disappointing the BCA can't give more details. This would "balance" the story coming out. I know it's not their job to balance the story, but it's our job to put as much of the story out there as we can, especially in a shooting case. But we can only print the facts that are told to us. We can't make them up.
In the alternative, if police can't give facts regards investigation, we cannot and will not refrain from publishing anything. Some people want us to refrain from publishing anything until all the facts are known. That's not realistic and holding off publishing news is not what newspapers do. Stay tuned.
Monday, July 20, 2009
"Retract that or I'll sue"
Three to five times per year, we get threatened with legal action.
Usually it's from the subject of a story who says they didn't say what we quoted in the newspaper. As you can expect, what they said probably did not reflect well on them or their family. Or, in other cases, they didn't think what they said would sound like it came out or produce a barrage of negative feedback.
A rather remarkable exchange in a Nicollet County courtroom stands as the latest threat of legal action. In an exchange during the sentencing of a case involving the death of a baby, in-laws went after each other, each defending their side of the husband-wife relationship. The father was accused of causing the baby's death, and eventually plead to a lesser charge but will do jail time.
One in-law told the mother they hoped she'd burn in hell, suggesting she was somehow the one who should be on trial. The mother and her mother responded in kind with threats of physical violence. Our reporter witnessed the conversation, transcribed it and put it in his story.
Who denied the allegation doesn't really matter. But we stood by our story. We haven't had a call from a lawyer yet.
That's the way these things usually play out. Even though we're all led to believe in America you can sue anybody, it's very difficult under our Constitution that provides substantial protection to the press.
Truth is always a defense against libel actions. If we were there, and we took notes, published accurately what was said, no matter how bad it might sound, we're protected by the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedents have supported the truth defense throughout history.
Of course, some such cases have nuances, and nothing is every guaranteed when you go before a jury, but the old saying applies: If you're in front a reporter, if you don't want it in the newspaper, don't say it.
A courtroom is one of the most important public places in a democracy. Taxpayers deserve to know what's being said and what's going.
Usually it's from the subject of a story who says they didn't say what we quoted in the newspaper. As you can expect, what they said probably did not reflect well on them or their family. Or, in other cases, they didn't think what they said would sound like it came out or produce a barrage of negative feedback.
A rather remarkable exchange in a Nicollet County courtroom stands as the latest threat of legal action. In an exchange during the sentencing of a case involving the death of a baby, in-laws went after each other, each defending their side of the husband-wife relationship. The father was accused of causing the baby's death, and eventually plead to a lesser charge but will do jail time.
One in-law told the mother they hoped she'd burn in hell, suggesting she was somehow the one who should be on trial. The mother and her mother responded in kind with threats of physical violence. Our reporter witnessed the conversation, transcribed it and put it in his story.
Who denied the allegation doesn't really matter. But we stood by our story. We haven't had a call from a lawyer yet.
That's the way these things usually play out. Even though we're all led to believe in America you can sue anybody, it's very difficult under our Constitution that provides substantial protection to the press.
Truth is always a defense against libel actions. If we were there, and we took notes, published accurately what was said, no matter how bad it might sound, we're protected by the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedents have supported the truth defense throughout history.
Of course, some such cases have nuances, and nothing is every guaranteed when you go before a jury, but the old saying applies: If you're in front a reporter, if you don't want it in the newspaper, don't say it.
A courtroom is one of the most important public places in a democracy. Taxpayers deserve to know what's being said and what's going.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thumbs up, thumbs down
We often hear the complaint that newspapers are so depressing, negative and tell only the bad news.
It may seem like that at times. There's plenty of bad news out there. The Free Press aimed to combat that perception a few years ago by our "Thumbs up, Thumbs down" feature that runs on the Saturday opinion page.
We give short snippets of actions we're disappointed with (thumbs down) and human activity we think is positive (thumbs up).
I'm here to say that the thumbs up almost always outnumber the thumbs down by a ratio of at least 3 to 1. So, in a year's time, we highlight 156 good things that happened to maybe 52 bad things.
Who says newspapers never have good news?
We also take thumbs items from readers. They'll often write in about a great coach, a great play they saw or just the acts of a Good Samaritan.
In these difficult economic and social times, people want hope. We offer many examples every Saturday morning.
Suggestions or submissions for thumbs can be sent to jspear@mankatofreepress.com
It may seem like that at times. There's plenty of bad news out there. The Free Press aimed to combat that perception a few years ago by our "Thumbs up, Thumbs down" feature that runs on the Saturday opinion page.
We give short snippets of actions we're disappointed with (thumbs down) and human activity we think is positive (thumbs up).
I'm here to say that the thumbs up almost always outnumber the thumbs down by a ratio of at least 3 to 1. So, in a year's time, we highlight 156 good things that happened to maybe 52 bad things.
Who says newspapers never have good news?
We also take thumbs items from readers. They'll often write in about a great coach, a great play they saw or just the acts of a Good Samaritan.
In these difficult economic and social times, people want hope. We offer many examples every Saturday morning.
Suggestions or submissions for thumbs can be sent to jspear@mankatofreepress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)