Shawn Evidence:  Steve Kulls mentioned in his article today that all he did was contacted them via email for the answer. This is a scapegoat tactic in my opinion, because they won’t say they don’t have a body publicly, instead they will tell you that they will tell anyone who wishes to know what the real deal is.

See the article wasn’t to condemn folks, you see it’s about making them responsible in what they report.

Here’s another example of how people jump to conclusions,

I DID NOT CONTACT THEM VIA EMAIL OR PHONE. I NEVER CONTACTED ED SMITH, DW OR RANDY OR ANYONE FROM THE MABRC FOR THAT MATTER.  I USED  SOURCES WHICH AS A JOURNALIST OR INVESTIGATOR YOU NEED TO HAVE. DIRECT WORD NEVER CAME FROM THEM.

Again…this is what I’m talking about…jumping to conclusions. This needs to stop and be taken constructively.

Shawn Evidence: Sheriff Kulls said he called and asked them if they had a body and they told him straight up "no". That’s part of their game plan.

Oh… so instead of picking up the phone and calling me, and Shawn has my number, lets refer to name calling, rather than find out what really happened.

 When one chooses to “name call” they have lost the debate.

Especially when they follow it it up with incorrect facts.

Now I will admit, Sheriff could be taken in a couple of ways good or bad.

I’m not going to prejudge, but it was not warranted. But some are choosing to take it personal instead of taking the approach, “Okay how can we make things better?”

In this technological age, we are so quick to retort on a forum, Facebook, Twitter, rather than pick up the phone and get the real story.

THAT”S THE POINT.

Reporting on rumor and subterfuge is not responsible journalism. This is not a lesson on “one upping” someone, nor do I think it was DW’s or the MABRC’s attempt at such.

It’s a life lesson for journalists, one I’ve had to take. Stop taking things so personally, and accept responsibility, not the one of the follow up report, but of the original story to begin with, that was chosen to be reposted. That point has been lost.

If I repost crap… my blog is crap… if I research an article that is posted and come to a different conclusion, who’s the winner? The readers, that’s who.

Robert Lindsay is a big boy, and as shown, if I come to a different conclusion, based in evidence and fact, he man’s up and admits it, as he did with the Erickson post last month. That’s journalistic professionalism.

To repost something, without a caveat or some research of your own, all you are simply doing is reposting. Nothing more. What I ask that you do more. I mean wouldn’t it be great to repost a blog of a researcher with a quote of your own from them about their story? Is that too much to ask?

This argument even transcends the libelous and slanderous commentary that is allowed on the bottom which allows that particular blog more hits and revenue sourcing at the expense of the person whose article has been reposted or featured.

But following up on a repost will “up” your game, but it could also take you out of your comfort zone, and possibly put you in an adversarial tone, but you’ve done your homework and you should rest on those laurels. And that is Journalistic ethics.

In this scenario, we have one blogger that jumped to a conclusion and another that reposts it without fact checking. DW nor the MABRC invited that. And from DW, the threats and emails came flooding in prior to their tactic of making the “neither confirm nor deny,” statement. Another fact that is overlooked. It had nothing to do with their statement.

Is that how I would have done it. Honestly I don’t think so. But what they did was prove home a point. A point which was missed by at least one of the intended targets. I understand the folks mentality that we don’t need anymore games in the field. That’s why I wouldn’t have gone that route, but I whole heartedly support the message of which they were trying to convey.

Shawn is a good guy folks. He’s not evil, he’s human. And we as humans sometimes need some prodding to see the light. That was the point here.

Robert Lindsay, is a good guy, he is not evil, quirky albeit, but a good guy nonetheless.

Steve Streufert is a good guy, he may be snarky in some of his prose to some, but that’s his writing style.

This goes for all sides, stop making it personal.

What was done was to show them how in some aspects of how NOT to do something for the sake of keeping the community, at least in some aspect on par, and perhaps raising the bar.

Well anyway, this closes my take on this.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Advertisements