Discussion for article #235483
Simple solution. Release the records to the public. If thereâs no âthereâ there, it will be obvious for anyone to see.
4 Likes
Iâm sure Pulitzer-nominated reporters are thick as thieves at the Tulsa World. No special effort needed to keep that guy around.
13 Likes
If I was nominated for a Pulitzer, Iâd leave OK on the next jet!!
6 Likes
So, letâs see. Whiter rich guy kills black guy whiling paying to play cop. Then the people that reported this unusual law enforcement procedure âdecideâ to move on to better opportunities elsewhere. Thatâs not suspect at all! There was no pressure on the reporters. Whistleblowers are adored not abhorred.
5 Likes
I donât see how releasing to the public the names of anonymous sources makes any sense. Maybe you can explain why breaking promises to sources and outing whistle blowers in public (against their will I might add) serves the paper or the public.
8 Likes
After my one and only visit to Bentonville, Arkansas (WalMart HQ) I decided, based on the Eric Clapton tune, to drive to Tulsa. All I remember is this
I did meet a friendly armadillo at Devilâs Den, so the trip wasnât a total loss.
Methinks you donât know how journalism works in a plutocracy.
3 Likes
The Tulsa World is owned by BH Media, a Berkshire Hathaway company, so itâs insulated from the politics that local (and generally politically-opinionated) ownership brings to the table. Insufficient fact-checking and unsubstantiated claims on a national story are pretty significant journalistic sins; worse yet is when the reporters appear on national nets to push the story. If they screwed up the sourcing, then it wouldnât be out of line for the paper to bounce them. May not be as systemic or as destructive as Judith Millerâs work, but still bad journalism.
Of course, all this assumes that the sheriffâs office has both the paperwork necessary to disprove the story and enough information to prove the reporters failed due-dil on their sources.
4 Likes
I donât think that was what @MrBlifil meant about releasing the records. I interpreted it as meaning release the training records from the Sheriffâs office. If the records exist then the story is clearly hogwash. If they donât release them, then it sure seems they were right to me. I may be misinterpreting MrBlifil, but I do think the Sheriffâs office should release the training records.
8 Likes
The deputyâs attorney did release the records, thatâs not the issue. The contention is that those records were signed by pliable supervisors who had replaced the ones that refused to sign off.
3 Likes
Why is this story âEXCLUSIVEâ?
Journalists are not Whistleblowers
they are Journalists
2 Likes
The scenario Iâm imagining is where the sourcing isnât strong enough to guarantee the paper would prevail in a libel suit, but neither can the sheriffâs office prove the story is false. So the lawyers make a deal: No retraction, but the writers go and the libel suit comes off the table. Under deadline pressure the writers (and editors) might have been tempted to gamble too much on the reliability of those anonymous sources.
2 Likes
Somethingâs rotten in Tulsa.
1 Like
No one seems to be able to handle the truth in OK.
1 Like
has an aroma ⌠a possible whiff of âset-upâ ? which would really be pretty rancid
⌠or is it a case of simply short cutting the research process - which would be even worse - if there is anything worse than shabby behavior by shabby individuals, it is shabby behavior by individuals trying to do right⌠it is equally wrong and it bolsters the shabby guys case!
420!
Does the Tulsa World newspape stand behind the story, or not?
The official âno commentâ is cowardly. The editors should leave the paper also.
Abominable
Probably went into hiding, the midwest has gone nuts . . . . .