Austin American Statesman story

Hiott was simply trying to cover herself, and her paper, in saying that the reporters "generally" do background checks.

It was highly typical that nothing/no one would have been background-checked in a "feel-good" feature case such as this. Unfortunately, that is especially true these days, when there "generally" is much less reporting/researching going on before things get published, anyway.

This example is exactly why there should be no "feel-good" stories, just well-reported stories, whatever that may mean in each case.

It's funny how, no matter how much we admire and appreciate and celebrate good writing, and no matter how much this industry changes and speeds up or the competition becomes more immediate or urgent due to all the new technology, really good journalism still always comes down to good reporting more than anything else.

For the most part, that aspect of our job is very under-emphasized, not well-enough taught and woefully under-appreciated.

This needed to be done right, and in its entirety, the first time around, or else, not at all. From a reporter's point of view, this is an example of that need for that. From a source/subject's perspective, this is an example of why full disclosure and some more nuanced preemptive handling is sometimes the best way to go.

If Adams had discussed her case/life with Lorenz the way she suddenly felt compelled to do with David Paulin, the AmericanThinker writer, the original story would have been much different, and yet, any reaction to it would have been manageable, and probably, mostly positive for all involved, anyway.

 

Same thing happened to me in my first job, a 14,000-circ weekly in a rural area. A woman called me to say her roses were blooming in February, months earlier than usual. Good photo-op for our little rag. I ran it with a little story and got a letter the next day (this was before e-mail) asking me how I could say nice things about that family, as her husband was going on trial for child-molestation.

Sure enough, I checked court records and he was. We didn't follow up. He was Chester the Molester, not her.

 

Read my mind, I completely agree. Pretty shoddy reporting from end to end.

 

To me that's a different story ... as you said HE is the molester not her.

Last week we ran a feel-good story on a woman we later learned recently finished serving time for forgery and uttering. We did not go back and do a folo up or a editor's note.
Then again, she didn't serve time for beating her step son to death.

 

That struck me as odd, too, and that in itself -the case - might merit a story on its own right, as to why the sentencing was light and how things really went down. But Adams' involvement in that case had nothing to do with the "feel gooder" Lorenz did, and the paper just made itself look 10x worse with the folo.

 

(Sigh) I guess I am going to be the lone dissenter here, for a couple of reasons.
1: I think the folo up is newsworthy. Yes, the reporting left a lot to be desired. But the woman had lived in the town for 20 years, 20 years and a separate town later after incident. So no one in town knew about it.
Even if you did know about it, you would have to be over the age of 50 to have any memory ... i.e. very few readers would have any idea this ever happened.
2: This isn't theft or forgery. It is the beating death of a step son. A crime to which she pleaded and served time.
To me that is very relevant. I would want to know. The reporting and execution were poor, but the subject matter is story worthy. And truthfully, I'm not sure I believe the woman's version of events.
3. Where is it written you get one shot? This isn't a court of law, so there is no such thing as double jeopardy. If you feel the need to make something right, why would you not?

That is a tough situation to be in and would make a good debate for a journalism class.
Or and SportsJournalists.com thread.

And PS: I thought the American Thinker story (as someone already noted) was pretty one-sided.

 

WFW. If the paper hadn't done the first story and felt somehow burned by it, it would not have pursued the second story. It let its own ego and arrogance dictate the handling of this. Trying to justify it is just more of the ego and arrogance at work.

Thanks, AAS editors, for throwing another piece of garbage on the massive landfill that is journalism's image with the public. Several pieces, if we count the high-and-mightly rationalizations for doing it.

 

So few times does this board lead to all-out laughter.

 

Uttering?

 

I'd side with Evil here, as a newspaper you are supposed to get things right. If you don't, what's stopping you from trying again? You can make a good argument that the original story wasn't thoroughly researched enough, but just because you missed on the first story doesn't preclude you from getting it right the second time. You do more service by printing all that you know then just dismissing the new information you've become privy to just because you didn't get it into the first story.

 

I was wondering the same thing.

 

Uttering is the legal term for writing bad checks, I believe.