Just Making Stuff Up...

If you want a great example of the media simply making stuff up, check out this article about the crazy guy who killed the Photo Radar operator last year.

Authorities haven't released a motive in Georgianni's killing but said Destories and Georgianni had never met. Many assume the killing was the most extreme backlash against the state's speed-enforcement program, which began in September 2008.

Arizonans have used sticky notes, Silly String and even a pickax to sabotage the cameras since they began snapping the photos of speeders. A citizens group is seeking to get a measure on the November ballot to ban the cameras.

Many assume...?  Is that journalism?  Do we print what we believe that "many assume?"  The reporter then makes a quick transition to the citizens group that is circulating petitions to eliminate photo radar.  So she is linking the murder to the petition gatherers using the device of "many assume".

Isn't it obvious after a year of digging through the facts that this guy DIDN'T have a photo radar motivation?  If he had ever been ticketed, or ever expressed any animosity, signed a petition or made statements to friends we would have heard about it over and over. 

This is a guy who has a history of mental illness and shot someone randomly.  His statements indicate that he didn't even realize that he had harmed a person until he saw it on the news. 

But the media is quick to simply make up a connection to a legitimate group that is collecting signatures in an effort to ask voters to repeal photo radar.   That method is about as "in the system" and legitimate as it gets. 

I keep asking myself why is there a school for journalists.  Seriously, what do they teach there and why would anyone pay to attend?

 

Comments

[nice]

I know when I first heard about the shooting, the first thing that popped into my mind was that it was an overly violent reaction to the photo radar system. If you listened to any local talk radio in the days that followed, you would have heard the same sentiments being shared by hosts and callers alike. I don't read that as "linking" the shooter to a petition drive. It was just a rundown of the visible signs of frustration and anger at photo radar.

there wasn't any known motivation for the shooting. If the article can be faulted for anythign, it's that the reporter didn't get someone to say it. But whoever did so wouldn't have had any authority, so I'm sure you'd be criticizing it for cherry-picking a comment.

[Stewie]

Spot on. I don't know about J school now but there was a time where a statement like that on an assignment would have gotten an F. Whether it's journalism schools fault or not there are people called "editors" that should catch this.

Sad than an editor would let that "many assume" statement pass thru in the first place and then juxtaposed with the sentence about the group who is working within the law, to change the law. Really sad that it's come to this.

Thanks for pointing this out. Hope our reporters and editors around the state read your post. This is a very blatant transgression.

[John Carter]

It seems all too common now for political agendas to be forced upon the public by using false reporting and outright lies in support of them. By the time people find out - if they ever do - it is too late.

[Michel Marizco]

It is indeed a retarded sentence though not, I think, for the reasons you stated.
"Many assume the killing was the most extreme backlash against the state's speed-enforcement program, ... "
There is no "assume" there. It either is the most violent episode against the program or it is not.
And it was. They were better off just saying so.
But you're right; if the guy had nothing to do with the petition against the bloody things they had no reason to try and claim otherwise.

[Pat Shannahan]

I assume the murder was related to photo radar and everyone I have talked to about it also assumes that it was related to photo radar. So, it is accurate to report that many people assume it was related. It is not at all obvious that it was a random shooting. Your statement is not factually correct. I guess using the word "obvious" means you don't have to stick to statements that are, you know, accurate.

Unfortunately, this story doesn't match your obvious political bias. You criticize the media for bias, but you are consistently more biased than they ever are.

[Robert Woodman]

It hasn't occurred to anyone that Destories' statement is self-serving and utterly false? Get a clue. "His statements indicate that he didn't even realize that he had harmed a person until he saw it on the news." We're all taking that statement at face value? Mr. Destories has absolutely no reason to lie? It doesn't occur to a law school graduate that this murderer is trying to get out of a first degree murder rap by claiming he "didn't even realize he'd harmed someone" until he saw it on the news?

What on earth do they teach people in law school? To believe that a suspect in a murder case is always telling the truth? Murder suspects never make false statements to deflect blame? They never ever ever claim that they didn't understand what they were doing was wrong because of mental illness? A "history of mental illness" exonerates everyone for everything? Like the guy who shot Mary Rose Wilcox? He wasn't mad about the stadium deal, he was just mentally ill and didn't understand that what he was doing was wrong? Of course he was acquitted due to his lack of understanding of his actions. If this is what they teach in law school, why does anyone pay to go to law school?

I have absolutely no reason to assume that Mr. Destories' actions were backlash against speed cameras. There's no need to assume that. It's obvious. He didn't sign a petition? No kidding. People who solve problems with guns don't usually bother with signing petitions. What's appalling here is that an innocent man was shot to death, and this blogger, a law school graduate no less, is bending over backwards to find an excuse for a brutal murder. He's shown far more sympathy for the murderer than the victim. Assuming that a murder suspect is always telling the truth isn't just wrong, it's pathetic. Just making stuff up? A first degree murder suspect would never just make stuff up, would he? Especially when the stuff he makes up might be helpful to his case?

Damn fine law school they run there at ASU. In which class did they teach Mr. Patterson that murder suspects never lie?