Kneepads In The Media

Posted by on . 34 comments.

Errin Haines of the Associated Press has written a fine story about the rally held at Douglasville, GA yesterday to protest the treatment of Genarlow Wilson by the Georgia legal system.

Short version: Genarlow Wilson is serving a 10-year mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. Regular sex would have drawn a lesser sentence, oral sex was deemed by Georgia law to be much more heinous. The law has since been changed by Georgia lawmakers, because of Genarlow Wilson’s case, but the state Supreme Court has ruled that Wilson cannot benefit from the change, because the new law cannot be applied retroactively.

On June 11, Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson ruled that Genarlow Wilson should be freed from prison and not be listed on Georgia’s sex offender registry. The judge called the 10-year mandatory sentence “a grave miscarriage of justice” that violated the constitution.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker immediately appealed that ruling, drawing criticism from civil rights activists.

The Georgia Supreme Court is set to hear the latest appeal in October.

Bernstein is also appealing Douglas County Superior Court Judge David Emerson‘s ruling that Wilson was ineligible for bond under Georgia law.

So there was a rally on Thursday. Al Sharpton made some sound-bite worthy statements. Errin Haines duly reported

“This boy is not only her son, he’s your son, he’s my son … We’re here today because what affects you affects all of us.”

and also

“If he had a different complexion and a different connection, we wouldn’t be here”.

For some reason, Errin Haines decided that this statement was less newsworthy than the others:

“If this young man’s name was Scooter Wilson, he wouldn’t be in jail … Since we don’t have anybody in the oval office to deal with the excessive sentencing for him, he has got hundreds in the streets that will speak on his behalf…”

Am I the only one thinking this was the money shot? And wondering why on earth Errin Haines would deliberately leave that out?

Sometimes you just can’t figure out why reporters make the decisions they do. Other times, you just wish you couldn’t.

Comments

  1. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 7:21 am

    Reporters don’t decide what ends up on the page, editors do. And editors’ biggest concern is column inches, as in what will fit on the page after all the ads have been layed out. In a daily paper, this all happens very quickly, and without some kind of political conspiracy.

  2. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 7:57 am

    Somebody tell this ass-wipe please that AP is not a daily paper.

  3. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 8:15 am

    The AP is a press agency that newspapers use. Here’s how it works:

    1. An AP reporter writes a story

    2. A newspaper editor decides to use that story, and which point the content is out of the hands of the AP

    3. The newspaper editor then cuts the story to his/her liking, depending on many variables but mostly column inches in regards to ad space.

    The first link you provided was to Ledger-Enquirer, which is a daily newspaper that decided to run
    Here is another version of the same story, written by the same reporter, used by a different newspaper.

    What I’m saying is, who knows what the “original” story looked like. Editors can and do cut AP stories to their needs. And was the name-calling really necessary? I merely disagreed with you. Are you that miserable?

  4. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 8:22 am

    The newspaper editor then cuts the story to his/her liking, depending on many variables but mostly column inches in regards to ad space.

    is this what you think? that space is a bigger concern than ideology? how about online?

  5. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 8:27 am

    I always call a spade a spade.

    Someone please tell this asswipe that he can roll up his patronizing bullshit and insert it at will into his own rectum.

    Every version of Errin Haines’ story on the internets lacks the Scooter Wilson quote.

    If there’s one thing I’ve proved here in all the time that I’ve been writing for 1115, it’s that I don’t write sloppy shit.

    Funny how this gutless, lying, soiled asswipe without a nut-sack is the only one who comes in here and accuses me of putting out sloppy shit.

    Last time around he claimed I had made up stuff that I couldn’t back up. Confronted, he refused to either back that up, or apologize.

    Comment #1 as written clearly does not, cannot, apply to a newswire story. Catch him just admitting that and moving on.

  6. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 9:00 am

    Newspapers generally run the same stories in print and online. They edit for print and run the same version in both formats.

    For this post, I didn’t accuse you of being sloppy, I merely questioned your assertion that us, as readers, could determine what a reporter initially wrote. Did she leave out that quote or was it edited? I don’t think either of us can know for sure. I also didn’t agree with you on the motives of reporters and editors, which I feel are mostly based on practical matters such as ad space, and not on political agendas.

    Also, you should get that potty mouth looked at.

  7. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Newspapers generally run the same stories in print and online. They edit for print and run the same version in both formats.

    no, they don’t. first of all, the times and wapo have separate print and online divisions. second, online versions are repeatedly updated, use a feedreader like netnewswire and you’ll see the changes as they happen.

    I also didn’t agree with you on the motives of reporters and editors, which I feel are mostly based on practical matters such as ad space, and not on political agendas.

    it’s like you haven’t been in this country for the last 15 years.

  8. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Also, I included the link to the other version of Haines’ story to illustrate how differently various news venues present the same story, so it’s almost impossible to tell what the reporter initially submitted.

  9. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 9:39 am

    no, they don’t. first of all, the times and wapo have separate print and online divisions.

    I almost mentioned that big papers, like the nyt and wapo, DO run different versions online, but most smaller papers don’t.

  10. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    It is also worth mentioning that considerations of what the ass-wipe calls ad space are totally irrelevant to the issue raised in my post. (Which must have been why the ass-wipe brought up “ad space” in the first place, and continued to harp on it throughout.)

    Considerations of available space only dictate that something must be cut; they don’t dictate what gets cut. So to argue that cuts are “mostly based on practical matters such as ad space, and not on political agendas” is not just disingenuous, it’s totally stupid.

    My complaint in the post was that two marginal quotes appear in the story, and the juiciest quote doesn’t. To invoke “ad space” in response is idiotically dishonest.

    Did she leave out that quote or was it edited? I don’t think either of us can know for sure.

    Balderdash and hogwash. When every single version of Errin Haines’ story available online is missing the Scooter Wilson quote, it’s perfectly obvious it was not contained in the original story Haines filed. But catch the ass-wipe admitting that.

  11. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    When every single version of Errin Haines’ story available online is missing the Scooter Wilson quote, it’s perfectly obvious it was not contained in the original story Haines filed. But catch the ass-wipe admitting that.

    This is the ass-wipe admitting that, but this is also the asswipe saying I never said that quote was in any versions of Haines’ story. My point still stands that we can’t tell what was originally submitted, and that news outlets present the same stories any number of ways. You may be comfortable in your certainty that this reporter left out that quote intentionally or not. I’m not.

    Any anyway, it’s spelled “aswipé.” Get it right next time.

  12. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    You’re admitting that the “it’s perfectly obvious (the Scooter Wilson quote) was not contained in the original story Haines filed”, and then going right on to say “My point still stands that we can’t tell what was originally submitted”?

    You and dnA from Too Sense should just run off into the sunset, and live happily ever after.

  13. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    this is also the asswipe saying I never said that quote was in any versions of Haines’ story

    yes, and I never said that you did.

    instead of sliding off to defend yourself against things nobody said, you want to try responding to any of the things I actually said? the things which leave your credibility looking extremely non-existent?

  14. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    The slant of your post was that the quote was left out for political reasons. My point is that we can’t really know that, and also that most editorial decisions are based on non-political matters such as the ad space issue. Matt is in journalism, if I’m not mistaken. Ask him if he’s every witnessed an editorial decision being made based on the political leanings of an editor and/or news outlet.

  15. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    just give up and go away, you fool

  16. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Do you believe the reporter left out that quote for political reasons?

    Can you even be sure it was the reporter and not an editor at AP who left it out? No, you can’t. You can point out that the quote is not in her story and take a guess from there as to why it’s not. Not much to hold on to.

  17. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    sac: this is getting into the same ballpark as your old comment calling The Economist “liberal.” sometimes it’s better to recognize that you’ve walked off the cliff and there’s nothing but air below. this is one of those times.

    ad space?

  18. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    i’ll also remind you that the way things work here is that if you are asked a direct question, you will answer it. this simply isn’t negotiable. otherwise, there are plenty of other blogs to misunderstand out there.

  19. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    That directive only goes one way around here, though, which is highly annoying. And in this case, there isn’t a question I was asked that I didn’t answer directly. If I missed one, kindly point it out and I’ll answer.

  20. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    That directive only goes one way around here

    that’s not true, and beside the point anyway.

    and here you go:

    instead of sliding off to defend yourself against things nobody said, you want to try responding to any of the things I actually said?

    also, i’m not “in journalism.” i have photos published, and have had some rejected on political grounds, but one doesn’t need to be in journalism to know that politics intrudes.

  21. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Herewith a list of direct questions:
    1) What did your #11 mean? WTF were you admitting?

    2) Do you agree that considerations of “ad space” are totally irrelevant to the issue raised in my post (for the reasons spelled out in my #10)

    3) Is there really any need to pretend you didn’t see Matt’s “second, online versions are repeatedly updated, use a feedreader like netnewswire and you’ll see the changes as they happen”?

    4) Do you agree that applies to “smaller papers too”

    5) Do you agree that your “Newspapers generally run the same stories in print and online. They edit for print and run the same version in both formats” was totally off the mark?

    6) Do you or do you not agree with “When every single version of Errin Haines’ story available online is missing the Scooter Wilson quote, it’s perfectly obvious it was not contained in the original story Haines filed”?

  22. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    That directive only goes one way around here, though, which is highly annoying.

    This presumably refers to my policy of normally ignoring everything you say, after you accused me of making up shit, and refused to either substantiate that charge or apologize?

    If so, you are an even bigger idiot that I thought you were.

    And if you find the way we conduct this blog so annoying, just get lost already. Pretty please?

  23. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    there are plenty of other blogs to misunderstand out there

    I’ll even be happy to recommend one: Too Sense.

    You’ll have a lot more fun misunderstanding that one.

  24. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    1) What did your #11 mean? WTF were you admitting?

    I admitted the quote in question was in none of the versions of Haines’ story that you or I found.

    2) Do you agree that considerations of “ad space” are totally irrelevant to the issue raised in my post (for the reasons spelled out in my #10)

    No I don’t. Something must get cut and the reason for cutting one thing and not the other varies depending on the story and the editor.

    3) Is there really any need to pretend you didn’t see Matt’s “second, online versions are repeatedly updated, use a feedreader like netnewswire and you’ll see the changes as they happen”?

    This is a good point.

    4) Do you agree that applies to “smaller papers too”

    Not most smaller papers, no.

    5) Do you agree that your “Newspapers generally run the same stories in print and online. They edit for print and run the same version in both formats” was totally off the mark?

    Again, depends on the newspaper, although most larger papers do have separate online and print issues.

    6) Do you or do you not agree with “When every single version of Errin Haines’ story available online is missing the Scooter Wilson quote, it’s perfectly obvious it was not contained in the original story Haines filed”?

    Yeah, probably, but my main gripe with you on this one is over your professed ability to determine the reasoning behind editors’ (not reporters, as they generally don’t determine how their story is presented) editorial decisions (particularly when there was another paragraph that mentions Libby, although not as damning as Sharpton’s quote), and the very likelihood that the story went through an AP editor before being posted online, so who the hell knows what happened?

  25. sac says:
    July 6, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    This presumably refers to my policy of normally ignoring everything you say, after you accused me of making up shit, and refused to either substantiate that charge or apologize?

    You seemed to have temporarily lifted your cone of silence on this thread, so when I asked you some questions, I thought you’d grace me with a response. How presumptuous of me.

  26. matt says:
    July 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    so who the hell knows what happened?

    you, apparently. paragraphs were cut to make room for ads.

    i won’t ask you to take my word for this, and i’m kicking myself for not saving the screenshots i made, but on several stories that i have followed closely, i have watched as online versions were changed at many papers. the old text changed to red and was gone replaced by new green text meant to soften the impact of the story, remove damning quotes etc. this is not isolated, and has nothing to do with ad space.

    i don’t know haines’ agenda, but i do know the agenda of many other reporters, and when things like this happen over and over, it’s hard to blame that on editors (except to the extent that they still employ said reporters) and ad space, isn’t it?

  27. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Yeah, probably, but my main gripe with you on this one is over your professed ability to determine the reasoning behind editors’ (not reporters, as they generally don’t determine how their story is presented) editorial decisions (particularly when there was another paragraph that mentions Libby, although not as damning as Sharpton’s quote), and the very likelihood that the story went through an AP editor before being posted online, so who the hell knows what happened?

    You are indeed a total fucking idiot.

    In my post, first I laid out all the facts. Then at the end I made it very clear I was presenting my opinion:

    Am I the only one thinking this was the money shot? And wondering why on earth Errin Haines would deliberately leave that out?

    I made it very clear that I didn’t necessarily expect everyone to agree with my opinion.

    I’m perfectly willing to defend my opinion, though. I think it is much more likely that Haines never put in the Scooter Wilson quote rather than that an AP editor took it out.
    a) I don’t think AP editors cut out juicy quotes from newswire stories for reasons of “ad space”. I think they leave those decisions to the newspapers picking up their stories.

    b) I don’t think any editor half-way worth their salt would take that quote out and leave the other two in. I don’t think you get to be an editor at AP if you’re not halfway worth your salt.

    If you want to believe it’s much more likely an AP editor took it out, you’re more than welcome to that belief.

    When you dived into this post with patronizing condescending comments, you were totally barking up the wrong tree, first applying newspaper standards to a newswire story, and then refusing to admit that your “ad space” argument cannot be use to explain why the juiciest quote was cut instead of one of the others. (You are still refusing to admit that you see the last point, which is pretty astounding even for you. One more time, “the reason for cutting one thing and not the other” has nothing to do with ad space. So if the question is “why was the juiciest quote cut?”, ad space isn’t going to provide the answer.)

    You seem to have a real problem admitting it when “you’ve walked off the cliff and there’s nothing but air below”. It leads you to absurdly pigheaded and stupid statements and positions.

  28. sarabeth says:
    July 6, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    You seemed to have temporarily lifted your cone of silence on this thread, so when I asked you some questions, I thought you’d grace me with a response. How presumptuous of me.

    Since my mind-reading skills are not on par with yours, I have no idea what you are referring to.

    You asked a lot of things which I consider rhetorical questions. I didn’t answer those. If there’s a substantive question that’s unanswered, I’m more than willing to answer it.

  29. sac says:
    July 7, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Do you believe the reporter left out that quote for political reasons?

    Can you even be sure it was the reporter and not an editor at AP who left it out?

    I was referring to those questions, which you did answer in #27.

    As for condescending, this was my first comment:

    Reporters don’t decide what ends up on the page, editors do. And editors’ biggest concern is column inches, as in what will fit on the page after all the ads have been layed out. In a daily paper, this all happens very quickly, and without some kind of political conspiracy.

    Condescending? I don’t think so. This was your response:

    Somebody tell this ass-wipe please that AP is not a daily paper.

  30. sarabeth says:
    July 7, 2007 at 10:01 am

    Condescending? I don’t think so.

    you’re welcome to think what you like. I find both your #1 and #3 extremely patronizing and condescending.

    after the way you behaved in the past you have some nerve complaining about being called an asswipe. as far as I’m concerned, your behavior warrants a lot stronger language than that.

  31. sac says:
    July 8, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Oh, #3 was intentionally condescending. I tend to get that way when someone calls me an asswipe after I merely disagreed with them. However, #1 can, in no way, be considered condescending.

  32. matt says:
    July 8, 2007 at 11:21 am

    sac, i think it’s funny that you revel in irritating us, and then are surprised when we get irritated. i don’t mind the disagreement, but the simple fact is that you were largely wrong about version vs space, and considering the timing, the quote that sarabeth noted was both timely and newsworthy. leaving in sharpton’s other less newsworthy and less timely quotes and leaving that one out is suspect at best. and chalking that up to ad space is not an especially strong argument.

    on a more general note, you should understand that it does get frustrating to deal with dishonest comments, arguments that even if true are 100% beside the point, comments from the borderline insane day after day. you also have to understand that you have questioned sarabeth’s integrity on more than one occasion, something that was uncalled for given our commitment and record at getting to the facts. if you think this doesn’t carry over, think again.

  33. sarabeth says:
    July 8, 2007 at 11:22 am

    However, #1 can, in no way, be considered condescending.

    trust you to steal from the bush playbook: we have investigated ourselves thoroughly and, guess what, there was no wrongdoing whatsoever.

    someone calls me an asswipe after I merely disagreed with them

    keep telling yourself whatever lies are necessary to allow you to keep living with yourself. it isn’t like I’ve explained repeatedly exactly why I called you an asswipe.

  34. sarabeth says:
    July 8, 2007 at 11:29 am

    i like “borderline insane”. that trumps “ass-wipe”