I’ve been following the coverage of this lawsuit against Willie Mae Kilgore, and I’ve seen something in the coverage that annoys me. I’ll pick on Rex Bowman’s piece in today’s RTD:
In a suit filed Monday in Scott County Circuit Court, Mary Lane claims Mrs. Kilgore, Scott’s registrar of voters, notified her in October 2003 that she was being stricken from the list of eligible voters because she is a felon.
But Lane is not a felon, according to the suit, which charges that Mrs. Kilgore struck Lane from the voter roll to “get even” with her.
Lane is not a felon…according to the suit? Why not check? Why present this as Ms. Lane’s word against Mrs. Kilgore’s? Ms. Lane has presented a letter from Mrs. Kilgore, in which Mrs. Kilgore says Lane is a felon. So we know that the accusation was actually made. And whether or not Ms. Lane has been convicted of a felony is a matter of public record — there is nothing keeping Rex Bowman or any other reporter from checking on that. That would determine who is being truthful here, and provide valuable information to readers that they’re not likely to be able to gather on their own.
If I may speculate, this is a result of a well-meaning effort on the part of journalists to be balanced and impartial. Presenting stories as he-said she-said is an easy way of doing this. This type of thing is seen in global climate change stories. Two views are presented: global climate change is man-made, global climate change is not man-made. Very seldom is it pointed out that over 99% of scientists working in that field support the former, and well under 1% support the latter. Instead, reporters write things like “the data show that September temperatures were the highest on record globally, according to researchers.” That makes a fact look like an assertion. So often the he-said she-said stories are over easily-verified facts and, if the reporter would simply verify the facts, the story could be presented accurately. Rapidly-declining newsroom budgets and pressures to appear even-handed make this difficult for reporters, I know. It’s just easier to present the facts as if either side in a disagreement may be right. But the thing is that the facts often don’t favor Republicans these days. That’s not the fault of journalists.
Two points to the first reporter who checks Mary Lane’s record and describes Willie Mae Kilgore’s actions accordingly. And there’s a bonus two points for the first reporter who continues to describe Willie Mae Kilgore’s actions accordingly in future stories on the topic, rather than pretending that a ruling from the bench is necessary to determine whether or not Ms. Lane has been convicted of a felony. (And remember, there’s still a week for reporters to pick up a couple of points for asking Jerry Kilgore how he decided to be heterosexual, and how it’s working out for him. These points are redeemable for valuable prizes: collect 1,200, win a bicycle!)
I know Mary Lane and I can say 100% she is not a convicted felon. Her only crime was being a Democrat and standing up to the Kilgores.
Her husband was running for sheriff against Broadwater. Sheriff Broadwater may as well be an adopted son of the Kilgores. A big part of the reason he was re-elected was the high % of absentee ballots cast that year.
I think Ms. Lane did have some drug charges back in 80s, but was never convicted of anything. In fact, she worked as a prison guard (i.e., carried a gun) when this all went down. I have heard that people said Mrs. Kilgore told people “if her husband is elected Sheriff, he will not even be able to take a gun home because Mary is a convicted felon.” Which a lot of knew was not true.
Waldo wrote:
I’m not surprised. After all you are talking about a political party that combines religion with politics and thinks it’s a good idea to do the same with religion and science. :)
Not a lawyer, but isn’t that the kind of thing you can sue for libel????????
Of course, Rex Bowman should have taken the time to nail down that very important fact. And, if the question didn’t occur to him, it should have occured to one of the many editors sitting around at the RT-D. Just as Justice is supposed to be blind, but not stupid ~ journalism needs to be balanced, but not stupid. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and one plus one does equal two. Far too much journalism is stringing together a series of “he said,she said,they said” laced with the narcotizing pablum of press releases and pack journalism.
Alice ~ It is not libelous for Rex Bowman to quote the lawsuit and allegations made in the lawsuit. Nor is it libelous for him NOT to check out whether Mary Lane is or is not a convicted felon. Lazy, yes. Libelous, no.
In addition to the charges already brought forward, Mrs. Lane could have a cause for action against Mrs. Kilgore for slander Which is spoken, as opposed to libel, which is written) for statements she made concerning Mrs. Lane’s alleged past criminal history.
Now, for extra points, Waldo, do you recall the question that Sabato asked at the end of the final debate that elicited a remark from Kaine concerning absentee ballots?
Those darn lazy reporters… always screwing up in favor of the Repulicans!
You ARE right, your point could have been made even without your politics in it… knee jerk I know.
I just want to point out that ‘Rex Bowman’ is pretty much the best name that there ever was for a reporter. Like something out of a Dick Tracy comic book.
WJ, the fact that Willie Kilgore was ordered to reinstate Mary Lane, and the fact that she did, answers your question.
She was not, and has never been, a convicted felon.Other than doing an NCIC check, which is only for law enforcement purposes, Rex could not possible legally check that out.
But if he had been able to, he would have discovered what I said in the lawsuit is true.
I should make something clear: I don’t doubt for a minute that she’s not a convicted felon. :) I never have.
Other than doing an NCIC check, which is only for law enforcement purposes, Rex could not possible legally check that out.
I don’t understand that. When I was the victim of a hit and run, once I got the name of the car’s owner, I was able to march down to the county courthouse and pull up his complete conviction record. I’ve done it a couple of times since, for different people. Conviction records are a matter of public record, at least in Albemarle County, and they ought to be so everywhere. I’d very surprised at the suggestion that might not be so.
WJ, what county would you look in to see if Mary Lane was a convicted felon?
My point is, yes, the records are public, but you woulsd have to check every county, every state.
So, no, only law enforcement can check out the NCIC record.
Ah, I understand — it is public record, just not easily so. Presumably, though, a reporter could begin with her county of residence, and easily rule that out.
So what I want to know is this — how do the registrars check? I can’t see that they’d have to clear every registration with law enforcement, would they?
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Registrars do not have to go to law enforcement to find out if a proposed voter is a convicted felon.
There is a section on the SBE web page that is accessible only to Registrars. There is nothing on the website that identifies the plaintiff in this case, Mary Sue Lane, as a convicted felon.
That is because she is not, and has never been a convicted felon. Period.