Austin American Statesman story

yes.

 

Then again, what makes an almost 40-year-old case, in which the story subject has long since completed the sentence, newsworthy on its own? As part of the background for the other story, OK, but once that's been done, why is the murder case news?

 

On a similar note, there was an american justice story on A&E, not sure how long ago, about a guy who was a 60's radical (something about a bomb/fire that he may or may not have been involved with/know about). He was living quietly in arizona, then ran for office many years later. The reporter assigned to his profile figured it out and he was caught because of it.
Similar in a way because the guy would never have been caught if he didn't run for office and have the story done.

 

This is what I'm saying as well. I understand the point that a folo may be newsworthy. This is one of those debates where no one is really wrong. But the folo had absolutely nothing to do with the puff piece, although, as someone brought up to me, the fact that she may have been given a lighter sentence, or something to that effect, because of her prominent position as a pilot does tie in very well to the puff piece. THAT is what should have been included in the feature, not necessarily a review of something that took place long, long ago.

 

What he (or she) said. Poor writing can take any situation and magnify it. And the AAS maded itself look very, very bad.

 

Similar how?

This lady wasn't "caught" doing anything. She had already served her time long ago. And she was operating a flight school, not running for office.

 

I'm going to be the second dissenter here.
If you know you're not guilty of killing a child, you don't take a plea. You fight. You try to prove that it was an accident, etc.
So, yes, this is newsworthy.
Also: Be careful of accusing the reporter of substandard research. Who among us has checked the criminal background of every subject of every feature we've written?

 

It was news 36 years ago. That battle was already fought.

Is it news now?

 

But maybe you realize you can't prove it. As much as we say innocent until proven guilty, defense lawyers exist for a reason. And that's what a plea of no contest is: There's no admission of guilt, merely an admission that you're likely to be convicted.

 

I believe her lawyer said to take a plea because of her position as a pilot, which was rare, for a woman, in those days. She didn't want to do it, her lawyer advised it.

 

Two counterpoints:

1) What if you don't have the means to "fight" (time, money, etc.)? It's nice and noble to say "you don't take a plea," but until you're in that situation, you really can't be certain what you'd do and what choices look better to you at that time. It's just not that cut and dried.

2) Just because checking out the complete criminal background of every feature subject is not common practice ... doesn't mean that it's not substandard research. Yeah, we've probably all taken that chance that nothing slimy will turn up, because it doesn't often. I know I have. But when it does, you'll get burned. Just like the reporter did here. It's not a character accusation to say she didn't do her homework. It's just a truthful observation.

 

Fair point.

As to the other matter, if you're going to criticize the lack of background-checking, I still say you're committing yourself to such diligence on every story you write from here on in. And that, frankly, isn't feasible. Especially in an era when everybody is told to do more with less.