Ron The Cop - A lie told often enough becomes the truth. » UPDATE: Hey did I get “libeled” by Smith in print via the Ombudsman Tallent in today’s S-R?

April 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

SCROLL FOR UPDATES:

Just wondering? As in the banners of the Media Mythbusters site and blog say:

“When in doubt, tell the truth.” — Mark Twain

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” — John F. Kennedy

I guess S-R Ombudsman Dr. Becky Tallent failed to read my prior letter and current letter to S-R Editor Steve Smith cautioning him about his reckless and now malicious accusations against Tim Connor, Larry Shook and me. Dr. Tallent apparently was just parroting Mr. Smith’s accusations against us without verifying the sources and references. So much for the hallowed principal of the MSM – journalism of verification. This could put both of them in the hot seat with Stacey Cowles [Cowles Co and publisher of the S-R] if he has to break open his checkbook. Funny this is how David Laird described me in his “apology” thread referred to by Dr. Tallent:

I first met Rocketsbrain last week during the Gathering, and to be utterly candid, nothing prepared me for such a cogent, clear-eyed police investigator. Having served with some degree of dignity and irreverence on both sides of the Blue Line, I immediately knew here was an investigator of the first mark, a man in whom I could trust. That certain knowledge perhaps distorted my memory about the banishment, because to some degree, we have both lived in the same world of studying white collar crime for decades. I am hoping eventually that Rocketsbrain will be able to rejoin us, for I value his insight and acumen more than words can describe.

Ron the Cop

*****

Sunday, June 8, 2008

OMBUDSMAN: Faulty complaints stymie corrections

Becky Tallent
June 8, 2008

Accuracy is a two-way street.

During the past month, I have been asked to look into several issues involving reporting accuracy in The Spokesman-Review. What I have most often discovered is that the reader has either misread or misunderstood the context of the article. Because of this, the readers actually gave me inaccurate or incomplete information to check.

That is fine as long as we can get it straightened out. After all, that is a major part of what I do here: help you as readers understand issues plus the how and why things are done in newspapers.

But one case stands out, in part because it involves blogs, the bit of cyberspace where many people now receive much of their information. In Monday’s Community Comment blog, a banned blogger’s posting was accidentally admitted and then removed.First, how is a banned blogger accidentally admitted? David Laird, a reader who is the blog’s co-administrator, said he found a post in a “hidden” file within the blog’s system. As for how the post made it into the hidden file, Laird called it “a great mystery.”

“I didn’t know it had been marked hidden until some of the folks in the discussion happened to comment on it,” he said. “Since, at that point, I had not remembered that (the blogger) was banned, I immediately un-hid it and wrote a message to Steve (Smith, editor of The Spokesman-Review) and the IT guys asking why it was marked hidden. We still do not know who originally marked it.”

Very shortly thereafter, he was contacted by Smith, reminded that the blogger is banned and the post was removed. Laird said he is unsure who exactly removed the post, but it was gone not long after he had recovered it and placed it in the blog.

Despite the posts criticizing Laird for removing the message and even for his apology, the fact is the blogger was banned for repeated unsubstantiated allegations against the newspaper and the Cowles family, which owns it. The banned blogger’s sense of accuracy in the situation is put off balance by an apparent agenda against the newspaper and the Cowles family. Smith is absolutely correct: If any of us would make these same allegations against anyone, it would be considered libel (if in print) or slander (if verbal). As a result, the man has been banned from the paper’s various blogs. [Ed Note: See Smith’s actual comment in the blog thread below]

What is interesting in this case is that Laird took immediate action and wrote an apology to the site community, taking responsibility for restoring the post after it had been removed. Laird, his co-administrator Jeanie Buchanan and I are talking, working on communication and to prevent any future such gaffes on Community Comment.

What I admire about Laird’s and Buchanan’s actions is their rapid response in explaining what happened to their virtual community with a great deal of facts and detail one might not expect in most virtual communities. It was a fair and accurate explanation, despite criticism of Laird and The Spokesman-Review from at least two bloggers through posts on Tuesday and Wednesday in Community Comment.

That brings up the question about accuracy in blogs: When do we know if what a blogger is telling us is true or not? That’s the problem with cyberspace; accuracy may be in the mind of the blogger, but it may not be true or accurate in reality.

So what should readers do if they suspect any area (print or electronic) of The Spokesman-Review is not accurate? Smith said via e-mail that company policy is clear: We correct our mistakes as quickly as possible. Readers can contact Smith or Managing Editor Gary Graham by phone, e-mail or regular U.S. mail to complain about any inaccuracy.

“When we have verified that an error has made it into print, on the Web, etc., procedures call for us to make an immediate correction in Accuracy Watch and, sometimes, in another location,” such as the opinion page if the mistake is in an editorial, Smith said.

“Those responsible for the error fill out a tracking form that goes to Gary Graham,” he said. “The form helps us to track individuals who are making too many mistakes and also identify institutional problems that might be contributing to mistakes.”

Graham said the newspaper published 36 corrections in May, with eight situations involving misidentification, such as titles and relationships. While the May-to-May numbers show a drop (36 this year compared with 40 last year), he said the overall number of corrections is up slightly, 206 published corrections this year compared with 197 for the same time last year.

So, to paraphrase classic television: Keep those cards, letters and, now, e-mails coming in about accuracy. In addition, let’s all strive for more accuracy in our conversations with each other so we have a clear understanding of the issues at hand.

*****
Excepts of S-R Editor Smith]s comments in S-R’s Community Comment Blog:

I’ll speak to the RBT case specifically because it sparked this debate.

RBT was banned not because of his views re: RPS. He was given space on these blogs to express those views when the comments were relevant to any actual RPS discussion. He wasn’t even banned for hijacking non-RPS threads to vent his outrageous conspiracy theories.

I finally pulled the plug on him when he accused — and still maintains — the Cowles family of arson and murder for incidents that occurred some 30 years ago give or take. (At the time, Stacey Cowles would have been 12 years old, give or take.) Of course there is nothing behind these accusations, first aired publicly by the Connor/Shook duo and repeated by RBT as if they were his own.

If any of us had leveled such accusations against anyone in the community, it would be libel (in print) or slander (if verbalized). That was it for RBT.

[…]

Good afternoon,

Messrs. Connor and Shook take issue with my assertion that they aired publicly the belief that the Cowles family may have deliberately burned down two downtown properties, one fire leading to a firefighter’s death.

They believe I have libeled them.

I clearly recalled that they aired these views on the Fuhrman show in the weeks before Fuhrman was dumped, singly or together.

I suppose I might misremember, and if that is the case, I do apologize. I certainly had no intention of libeling them.

Insulting them, marginalizing them, ridiculing them, well yes, that is often my intention with Connor/Shook.

Now that I have apologized to them, how about my apologies for the slanders, libels, accusations, false assertions and accusations of ethical misdeeds that are part and parcel of their anti-Spokesman agenda.

Whoa, that isn’t going to happen. Apologies, for these two, go only one way.

steve

Posted by Steven A. Smith | 3 Jun 4:09 PM

*****
Award winning investigative reporter Tim Connor of Camas Magazine who Smith refers to above responded in this thread with this comment [Ed Note: Formating slightly adjusted for readability]:

So, this is what Mr. Shook and I get from the esteemed editor of the Spokesman-Review. An apology in the form of an assault weapon. It’s actually worse than the double-backhanded apology Smith bestowed on my friend and colleague Tom Grant last fall. Remember that one?

Posted by Steven A. Smith | 21 Nov 10:38 AM

Good morning,

I received the following from Tom Grant, former local TV reporter, Daily Planet editor and candidate for mayor (against Jim West).

He takes issue with my post characterizing his journalism career in Spokane. I won’t dispute his version of events. And I do apologize to Grant for any errors of fact. As I told Grant, his reputation in Spokane is not my business or concern. The conspiracy nuts who look for RPS behind every shrub are my business. One note, I didn’t mine any private data for info on Tom Grant’s application to KHQ. That was well-known in the broadcast community at the time.

The problem here is that Mr. Smith, as the editor of a good-sized American newspaper, is supposed to setting an example for his readers about how to engage in civil discussion. That’s what American journalism is supposed to be about. It’s why we have journalism ethics rules. It’s why we’re supposed to check facts before we publish. You know, just like it says in the SPJ Code ethics. So, now we have Mr. Smith lying about me based on his foggy recollection of what Mr. Shook and I, or Mr. Shook, or me, said on a radio last years. Well, I didn’t saying like what he attributed to me. It’s a lie and if need be, S-R contributer Rebecca Mack can easily attest to it. She was in the studio with me that day when I was on the Fuhrman show. Nothing like what Mr. Smith reported happened. It’s pure fiction.

But rather than do the honorable thing and admit his mistake and apologize, he jokes about it, and admits that he sees his purpose to continue to try to marginalize Mr. Shook and me.

But the rules of the trade for journalists are these. If you’re crack on somebody the way Mr. Smith cracked and me, Mr. Shook, and Mr. Grant, you’d better get facts straight. For the record, I have tried for four years to engage Mr. Smith in the facts of the River Park Square story. I’ve sent him countless original documents to support the facts in my RPS reporting. He has accused me, in the past, of falsifying facts in my work. That’s a very serious charge for any journalist to make about another journalist. You should be willing to back it up with facts. Mr. Smith isn’t willing to do so. He seems only willing to engage in character assassination and marginalization. He quite literally, over the past four years, has not assumed the burden of challenging a single fact in my Camas reporting.
I think as much as how he’s handled Mr. Grant, Mr. Shook and myself, Steve also revealed himself, brilliantly, in an interview that Bill Richards did when Richards was investigating the S-R’s RPS coverage. You can find my story on the interview, by going to the Camas Magazine website at www.camasmagazine.com. Look in the package of stories on the Washington News Council report (“The Verdict’) and open and read the piece entitled “Right in Your Face.” Much of that piece is a word for word transcript of Richard’s interview with Smith regarding how Smith handled the evidence that Betsy Cowles edited S-R copy on a key RPS garage story. It speaks volumes about Steve and just how indifferent he is to the facts.

Tim Connor

Posted by Tim Connor | 3 Jun 7:22 PM

UPDATE I:

Larry Shook of Camas Magazine sent this demand letter to Stacey Cowles as S-R Editor Steve Smith’s employer and publisher either to show where Mr. Shook has said what Mr. Smith has alleged or issue an immediate retraction and apology to him. I too was caught up in Mr. Smith’s recent accusations. Mr. Shook demanded an action by the end of the business day.

Ron the Cop

*****

From: Larry Shook <lwshook@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Immediate correction request
To: staceyc@spokesman.com
Cc: Steve Smith <SteveS@spokesman.com>

Dear Mr. Cowles: On 6/3/08 I sent Spokesman-Review editor Steve Smith the two e-mails copied below. The first was sent at 11:57 a.m. and the second that evening at 7:22 p.m. Both of those e-mails were copied to you and others. Their purpose was to request a timely correction from Mr. Smith and The Spokesman-Review of libelous statements Mr. Smith published about me in a Spokesman-Review publication: namely Mr. Smith’s blog on The Spokesman-Review’s Internet platform. Because I have had no response from Mr. Smith to date to my requests for immediate corrective action, I assume he does not intend to comply.

Therefore, I now formally request that you, as Mr. Smith’s publisher and employer, immediately instruct him to immediately comply with the requests contained in the below e-mails. Timeliness is extremely important to me in this matter. I consider both myself and the community (because of the public interest value of my work) to have been seriously and intentionally injured by Mr. Smith’s attacks. Because of the importance I assign timeliness, I request that you let me hear from you by the end of this business day whether you intend to comply with the request that I hereby make of you.

Clearly, Mr. Cowles, I am trying to understand whether your newspaper editor’s admitted intent to libel me (“Insulting them, marginalizing them, ridiculing them, well yes, that is often my intention with Connor/Shook”) has been done with the active support of you and Cowles Publishing Co. or, if not, whether you will take the prompt corrective action I here request for the third time.

Thank you. Sincerely, Larry Shook

6/3/08 11:57 a.m. e-mail
Steve:

Ron Wright just forwarded me an e-mail exchange containing a recent blog posting of yours. In your blog you wrote:

“I finally pulled the plug on him [Wright] when he accused — and still maintains — the Cowles family of arson and murder for incidents that occurred some 30 years ago give or take. (At the time, Stacey Cowles would have been 12 years old, give or take.) Of course there is nothing behind these accusations, first aired publicly by the Connor/Shook duo and repeated by RBT as if they were his own.”

With that statement you appear to be accusing me of accusing “the Cowles family of arson and murder.” Are you? If so, please provide me with the basis for your assertion. I request you provide me with the specific statement of mine to which you refer.

If you have no specific statement in mind, please provide me with whatever specific factual basis supports your allegation. If you have neither, please retract this accusation on your blog site immediately and copy me with the retraction.

Thank you. Sincerely, Larry Shook

6/3/08 7:22 p.m. email
Steve: Ron Wright just forwarded the below blog posting to me, which you apparently published this afternoon.

“Good afternoon,

They believe I have libeled them.

I clearly recalled that they aired these views on the Fuhrman show in the weeks before Fuhrman was dumped, singly or together.

I suppose I might misremember, and if that is the case, I do apologize. I certainly had no intention of libeling them.

Insulting them, marginalizing them, ridiculing them, well yes, that is often my intention with Connor/Shook.

Whoa, that isn’t going to happen. Apologies, for these two, go only one way.

steve

Posted by Steven A. Smith”

This posting does not address my earlier request for retraction, which I now reiterate.I earlier wrote that “you appear to be accusing me of accusing the Cowles family of arson and murder. Are you? If so, please provide me with the basis for your assertion. I request you provide me with the specific statement of mine to which you refer.

“If you have no specific statement in mind, please provide me with whatever specific factual basis supports your allegation. If you have neither, please retract this accusation on your blog site immediately and copy me with the retraction.”

Not only do I not consider your latest posting a retraction, I consider it to contain a new libel. You now write: “Insulting them, marginalizing them, ridiculing them, well yes, that is often my intention with Connor/Shook.”

With that remarkable admission you appear to be confessing to actual malice.

You further accuse me of “slanders, libels, accusations, false assertions and accusations of ethical misdeeds.” If you have actual evidence of this misconduct you have a professional duty to publish it to substantiate your accusations. If you have no such evidence but publish your accusations for the purpose of insulting me, that is malicious conduct on your part that requires immediate redress.

Therefore, I now make two specific new requests of you.

1. Please obtain a transcript of the Fuhrman show in which you recall my accusing members of the Cowles family of murder and arson. Please post immediately the specific comments made by me upon which you base your accusation.

2. Please provide me with a list of the specific “slanders, libels, accusations, false assertions and accusations of ethical misdeeds” you accuse me of. If you cannot produce such list, please retract your accusations immediately.

I will just note that if I am guilty of misconduct as egregious as what you accuse me of–charging your employers with murder and arson, slandering, libeling and falsely accusing them, they will be as interested in the facts of this alleged misconduct as I am.

I think you will agree that arguing with someone who acknowledges that insult is his intent is a futile undertaking. On the other hand, I assure you I do feel a moral obligation to apologize for the misdeeds of which you accuse me, if you can show me specifically where I am guilty of them. I will also gladly correct any reporting errors which you apparently feel I have made. Obviously, however, I can’t do that without knowing exactly what you are talking about. Again, because you have published these accusations, I request that you publish your specific documentation of them or immediately publish your unqualified retraction of them. I consider you to be both legally and ethically bound to take these steps.

Please be clear about the formality of my requests. I’m not sure what, if any, legal and ethical sanctions you might face because of your conduct, but I do wish to make a clear record of it and my response. Sincerely, Larry Shook

*****

I was just copied with this reply to Mr. Shook from Mr. Smith at 4:36 PM 06-11-08, This battle has just been enjoined. I should note that S-R Attorney Duane Swinton is none other than the same attorney who is the subject of previous posts at FOF and also is complicit in the original RPS Bond Fraud:

BREAKING – Tim Connor appeals WSBA ruling on Duane Swinton

Ron the Cop

*****
Mr. Shook,

Your letter to Stacey was copied to me. Although he did not receive your e mail, I shared it with him and with our legal counsel.

I have previously responded to your concerns in a Community Comment post.

There is nothing more to be said or done.

I have taken the liberty of copying Stacey on this response as well as our lawyer, Duane Swinton.

Thanks for writing.

Steve Smith