The Advocate faces credibility questions in indictment story
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
7 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
Who do you trust? Who do you believe?
Port Lavaca resident Mario Flores doesn’t know, but agrees the stories behind the recent indictments of Victoria public officials must continue as the facts come out.
“The main thing is to find the facts of what is going on and not to mislead anybody in any of the information,” Flores said.
With the recent high-profile stories concerning the indictments of the Victoria police chief, former city attorney, mayor and a police lieutenant, residents showed concern over fair and accurate coverage.
One reason: the Advocate’s name and public service editor’s name appear in the indictments.
And the paper shouldn’t hide that fact, said editor Cliff Kincaid of the Accuracy in Media’s “AIM Report.” The Advocate should regularly remind readers of any involvement, he added.
Accuracy in Media is a nonprofit, “grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories.”
“You obviously have an obligation to report on this because you are the only paper in town,” Kincaid said. “The bottom line is you just have to disclose everything your paper knows about this.”
Executive editor of the “Columbia Journalism Review” Mike Hoyt agrees. The Review, published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, reviews and critiques “press performance.”
“You simply have to cover it. You have to be transparent and fair and full,” Hoyt said. “Just tell the story.”
From time to time, publications may become part of the story, Hoyt said. “The New York Times” had several occasions where it tangled with a presidential administration, he said.
While readers may question the Advocate’s credibility, the newspaper would lose credibility by not covering the story, Hoyt said.
Hoyt suggested using the paper’s opinion page to explain the newspaper’s role.
Perhaps the Advocate could let an ombudsman or consumer advocate write a column responding to reader complaints of coverage, Kincaid said. More papers are developing such positions.
“People are going to be increasingly skeptical of what they see and read in your paper,” Kincaid said. “They’re going to want to see some effort in your paper to exhibit awareness of this potential problem to make sure your coverage is not tainted or compromised.”
But 41-year-old Nick Stewart, a pastor from Victoria, thinks it’s too late for the Advocate. The Advocate lost credibility with this particular story and can’t really be objective, he said.
“You already involved yourselves in the whole story,” Stewart said. “The newspaper shouldn’t be part of the event.”
Stewart suggested the Advocate also print any other conflicts of interest. Stewart worked in the Advocate sales department a year ago.
Victoria resident and secretary Teresa Atwell, 54, doesn’t agree with printing everything in the paper.
“Print what you know and be done with it until it goes to court,” Atwell said. “Everything is so negative – and I hate negative.”
Flores agreed the Advocate shouldn’t just come up with fodder to write headlines and sell the paper. He said that would be unfair to any innocent people behind the stories.
“There’s a lot of political issues involved. It’s going to be a little tough,” Flores said. “I think in the end, everything will come together.”
The newspaper knows it walks a fine line on this story, managing editor Thomas Martinez said.
But as the story continues to unfold, the Advocate will pursue all angles under its role as the community’s watchdog, he said. “The community deserves to know the truth. We will continue to vigorously cover the story until we’re satisfied the truth has been uncovered.”
Tara Bozick is a reporter for the Advocate. Contact her at 361-580-6504 or tbozick@vicad.com, or comment on this story at www.VictoriaAdvocate.com.
Comments
Here's my opinion, and it's just my opinion. I think lately the advocate has done a decent job covering this. When the Ratcliff story broke the Advocate reported like TMZ or Inside Edition, and I was almost ashamed to say that I had worked there for 7 1/2 years. Things have changed since I have left, but I think they are doing what is right. Some people don't realize how hard it is to write the entire truth, when others don't want to believe that truth or have their own mind made up. I went on to manage a paper and you have to believe what the elected and non-elected officials give you for fact. If anything was ever given to us off record at the Advocate or at the paper I managed, it was just that, off the record. However, we did do our own investigating. That's what makes a good story, a good reporter and a great paper...when journalist go off on their own and do some research and investigating and bring it back to and add it into the story and make people what to question and know what's going on.
June 1, 2008 at 12:25 p.m.I think the Advocate has done well. I honestly don't think there is any political biases or any one pulling puppet strings.
Personally, I can't imagaine how awful it must be to have elected officials in this sort of mess and not being able to trust anyone, but don't most people say that about our country's government? I think we should let the courts decide and move on. If we focus on this, we may miss what's happening around us...life. And we don't know when that will come to an end.
All anyone expects from the Advocate is unbiased news....is that possible? It seems not. The pieces written by the editorial board are proof positive that the Advocate has a stance and the reporting backs that up. Editorials are just that...opinions. However, I am afraid the Advocate's opinions are a major part of their overall reporting.
It is certain that every person at the Advocate from the Editors to the janitor has an opinion about local events and scandals. But a newspaper's job is to report events without taking an obvious stance in the reporting. I am afraid that has not been done. This goes of course for the local T.V. media reporting as well.
Any news reporting entity has an awesome responsibility and that is to remain unbiased without letting personal opinion to become a part of their reports.
Examples?....the "fluff" piece on Ratcliff's victim has been mentioned; the piece on Buentello....how many others who are indicted for other crimes are given the opportunity for friends and family to talk about how wonderful a person they are...the piece linking people in power with pedophilia when Ratcliff was first charged...and there are so many others it would take too much room to mention.
I realize that sometimes just reporting the facts is not as interesting as touching a story with a bit of the tabloid. But please give it a try.
June 1, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
June 1, 2008 at 6:55 a.m.Wheels within wheels within wheels...
Confucius say: If you ever once tell the truth, no one will believe you again no matter how much you lie.
June 1, 2008 at 5:29 a.m.Here is another example - One of the VA's owners, Kay McHaney, is a big supporter of Debra Branch. You all remember Debra Branch - she was the one that could not make up her mind if she wanted to run for DA here in Victoria and then later it was determined that she was behind improprieties at the DA office when she was there (watching TV all day long and not working cases, only to dismiss them if they did not take a plea, not to mention allowing one of her investigators to "rubber stamp" her name on Grand Jury subpoenas that were illegally issued). I'd say that the VA is still taking a stance against DA Steve Tyler because Kay's girl Debra was not elected. There's your slant.
June 1, 2008 at 1:14 a.m.to THEMIS....I don't believe that anyone has portrayed Mike Ratcliff's victim in an "angelic" light as you have suggested! He is what he is and he became that the day that Ratcliff took it upon himself to abuse his position, a VICTIM!!!!
June 1, 2008 at 12:25 a.m.The issue stems primarily with the Advocates intent to be biased in its presentation of information. As self appointed arbiter of what should and should not be in the public's awareness based by censoring truthful information calls for scrutiny. By allowing the accuser of Sheriff Ratcliff an anonymous heart string piece portraying him in an angelic light while placing the Sheriff in a "Willie Horton silhouette" front page piece speaks of a half step above tabloid journalism.
June 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.