If the phone rings around your house some time over the weekend, Alan Dearest, you might not want to answer it. It just might be the college where you got your journalism degree asking you to return it.
What has started out as a joke over your refusal to run the Gil Fried yarmulke story has now developed into you becoming the de facto PR person for the Lykos campaign. After reading the "article" you ran this morning, I think you pretty much put the last nail in the coffin that contains your "journalistic integrity".
Its gotten to the point that the term "journalistic integrity" seems like an oxymoron if you use it in the same sentence with the Chronicle. (As a side note to the Chronicle: Nice job on running the story about Deputy Craig Miller's blood alcohol level as your headline so his family and kids couldn't avoid seeing it. Would that article not have been just as newsworthy a little further down the page?)
Now, back to you, Alan Dearest. For months now, this website and others have been bringing to your attention legitimate stories regarding Pat Lykos. At least they were legitimate to your newspaper back when it still had some integrity. Articles regarding her violations of civil rights, her lying under oath, her temper, and her bad judgment. All of these articles were stories that your newspaper wrote in the 1980s and 1990s.
All of these articles deal with legitimate topics that would effect Pat Lykos' ability (or lack thereof) to be the District Attorney. They are stories that matter to a race of the D.A.'s Office importance. Yet, you have consistently ignored them for months now.
However, if Pat Lykos calls you because she would like to spend her afternoon attacking Kelly over news that has been overplayed throughout the whole campaign already or has no relevance to job ability, you rush to write it faster than you can say "what yarmulke story?" Does Lykos have you on her speed dial, Alan? And by the way, she's lying to your face when she tells you about the cussing. Honesty isn't exactly her strong-suit.
I'm sure that you and Jeff Cohen have these big delusions of grandeur that when 2008 comes to a close the Chronicle will finally get that elusive Pulitzer for its part in "taking down the D.A.'s office" (even though Channel 11 was the one who actually broke all the stories). That story wouldn't have quite the ring to it for you if Kelly got elected, would it?
I know, that as a journalist, you probably like to consider yourself as some sort of hero to the community. A fair-minded, completely neutral intellectual exposing the underbelly of the Big City. Something along those lines, right?
Maybe you were a long time ago, but you certainly aren't anymore.
I'm not telling you what to write, by the way. I'm just telling you that your credibility is shot.
7 comments:
New D.A. is holding a 4pm meet-and-greet with the media.
Well, Pat is clearly in full negative bull dog attack mode.
Maybe it's time for the Seigler camp to pull out some of Lykos' past.
As to Bernstein, I'll bet he'd cover those stories if they came from the Seigler camp. I hate to always defend him, but he's not supposed to manufacture the news, he's just supposed to report it.
I didn't see Alan's article as being that one sided.
Lykos is taking whatever pot-shots she can at Kelly. The fact that she has resorted to a video taken by DeGeurin's minions while they were preparing for Temple should speak volumes. When the highest paid defense attorney who can't stand Kelly supplies ammo to her opponent, hopefully voters can see what is going on.
Still, I can't fathom why Bernstein won't report on the flaws of Lykos, when he clearly thinks the race is newsworthy.
I didn't see this particular article as unfairly biased against Kelly, in that it was an attack job on her. I am perplexed at why Bernstein seems insistent on being Lykos's shield though. Come on, man. Truth is truth. When you report some facts, and withhold others, aren't you skewing the information? It's cheating. Dishonest. Unfair.
And unprofessional.
THis comment is about your blog at LST concerning a public defenders office. If you think the court appointed attys now do a "good " job you are sadly mistaken. Many of them sign in downstairs (at 1200 Baker St) go up stairs, then leave before the inmate is brought out for discussion. ONe , Jeffry Brown spent 24 mo. at Baker St. without bail and without a trail. NEVER WAS ABLE TO SEE HIS COURT APPT. ATTY!!!!!
I agree that the Chronicle article wasn't really that bad. I have started to notice, however, that Lykos only has bad things to say about Kelly and nothing good to say about herself. To me, that speaks volumes. It's kind of like a witch who goes to a town and tries to scare the villagers into submission. The problem is that she can't give anyone a reason why they would WANT to get on the broomstick with her.
Anon 8:53,
It is difficult to believe that a person spent two years in the Harris County Jail without ever speaking to an attorney. Most defendants are brought to court at least on a monthly basis, where they should meet with their court appointed attorneys.
If the tale of Mr. Brown is true, I should think that the media should be alerted immediately and the attorney appointed should get his ticket yanked (slang for disbarred). However, I've been at the CJC for too long not to know that often times Defendants become very angry with their attorneys when their attorneys aren't "miracle workers".
Even if the story is true, I'm not convinced that a Public Defenders' Office is the solution to that problem.
The PD system works in other states as a result of mutual discovery. All transparency issues that would be resolved along with Brady problems.
This would only work if the PD was provided with a large enough budget to make the playing field equal. It would certainly take away any home field advantage the DA has now if PD's were assigned courts like the DA.
Some jurisdictions use hybrid systems with a small PD and appointed attorneys. That doesn't seem to work well and the PD's have large unmanagable case loads, are underpaid, and little investigative resources.
I am opposed to the quasi system used by some of the judges of employing attorney's for a month. That just smacks of the good old boy system.
Obviously this would effect the defense community more than the state so I would love to hear what they think.
Post a Comment