Wolfie...some praise from Poynter for the journalist you recommended to us.

[Berry Cool]

http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=67&aid=144620

Should make you feel good.

This article makes excellent points about what real journalism is. It's not just about following the media pack or even your own biases and prejudices. And yes, it's a lot easier to do a good job of covering a story when you have the basic, long-term familiarity with the subject than when a story suddenly becomes "hot" and your editor sends you out on it and you have to try to "bone up" and become an "expert" on a topic in a hurry. It's like covering a sport...in the baseball steroids story, obviously someone like Keith is going to be in a way better position to cover it than someone who barely knows the rules of the game.

It sounds funny to say that there's a reporter who actually covers "the polygamy beat," but that's what Brooke Adams does, and apparently she's damn good at it. Her background gave her a leg up that no one else covering this story had, it made it easier for her to talk to the families, and it led her to trust her own instincts more and to dig for more infomation than others did. Obviously, also, neither she nor her editors were motivated by personal feelings or by a drive to get the most sensational story possible.

It reminds me somewhat of the Duke lacrosse players story. I myself was inclined to believe the story of the alleged rape victim--in part because I think so many rape victims have gone unbelieved that we need to start leaning the other way and assume they are telling the truth, or, at least not assume they are lying. My own experiences and my background inclined me to mistrust the claims of a bunch of wealthy, privileged young men and their families, friends, and college campus who said they were being framed for something they didn't do. And that was in part because I know how easy it is for people to deny that people they know and like--especially people who are like themselves, or people who are "from the right families"--could possibly do something terrible and wrong. Sometimes, they simply cannot countenance the possibility.

We know now, however, that as sympathetic as the alleged victim was in many ways, and as unsympathetic as were the young men she accused of raping her, the circumstances were not as she said they were. We now know that the prosecutor had his own motives in this case, that the police bungled it, that the evidence either was nonexistent or didn't add up. So, no matter how much we might want to think that there was fire behind this smoke, that a wrong was done that needed righting, there wasn't. Except the unfortunate aftermath is that these young men will for the rest of their lives be associated with this case.

Sometimes it's really hard to put ourselves in the shoes of the person accused of committing a crime, rather than in the shoes of the alleged victim. We like to think it would never happen to us. But it could happen to us, and if it does and we know we are innocent, we would like to think that the American justice system will not assume our guilt; that no matter what conclusions the media and the public jump to, we will have a fair opportunity to clear ourselves. We like to think that we won't be deprived of life or liberty without due process, that we won't have our property or our children snatched away from us on a flimsy pretext.

Until it happens to the other person. And then it's so easy to say "Yeah, but I bet you anything he's guilty" or "I read a book about those people and they're all no good." But that's not how the American justice system works. It works on evidence and proof--or is supposed to--not hearsay or gut instinct or emotion.

There's no need to understand or love the YFZ group to believe that if someone suspects them of child abuse, the way to investigate the situation is to find actual indications that such abuse may have taken place and then look into it on a family-by-family basis--not descend on the whole group and take all their kids away. Just thinking they're doing something illegal isn't enough of an excuse. Neither is their religion, their isolation, the way they dress or the fact that they offer limited options to girls and women in their society--otherwise we might as well strip the Amish and the Orthodox Jews of their children, too. Even the way they circled the wagons, so to speak, to protect themselves, not always giving straight answers to the state, or sometimes saying nothing, is not enough of an excuse; it's common for people who fear persecution to try to confuse their accusers in an attempt to protect themselves. Neither is a picture of one man--ONE MAN--with a 12-year-old girl on his lap, hugging and kissing her. It makes for great TV ratings and tabloid sales, but just running those pictures and waiting for the explosions from the public isn't journalism.

Sometimes, in this great country of ours, it's necessary to speak up for the unpopular side, where it looks like you're sticking up for the bad guys. But that's what makes us different from the countries where people are routinely thrown into prison on the mere suspicion of a crime. Or at least it used to.

Maybe someday more of the people on DU who are horrified by the existence of Gitmo and the death of habeas corpus will realize that if they really think that a whole group of people deserves to lose their kids just because of some hinky phone call, they're being hypocrites of the highest order.

In the meantime, Wolf, we salute you. :-)

[WolverineDG]

1. Aw, thanks Berry

:sniff:

:loveya:

dg