Post by heathwaldrop on Apr 24, 2006 14:45:31 GMT -6
In light of a letter to the editor that will appear in the News Observer this week, and in light of a letter than ran last week, both from members of the Danny Sanders family concerning the Sanders case, I've decided to rebutt some of the accusations against the newspaper.
Here's the timeline of the Sanders case from our end:
•In May of 2005, while on medical leave, Sanders was told that he could not return to his position because of credibility questions stemming from the GED records that he later pled guilty to fabricating. We gave Sanders a chance to respond to the allegations, but he did not return our phone calls.
•In December of 2005, Sanders pled guilty to the allegations. A week later, one of his supporters complained that both we and the Ledger had our stories wrong, that Sanders actually had pled no contest instead of guilty. A guilty plea would have kept him from running for public office. However, we checked the court documents related to the case—which by the way are public record—and they showed that Sanders had signed his name to a guilty plea agreement.
Within days we were told that the guilty plea happened because of a snafu at the courthouse and that it would be rectified later that same week. We checked back with the clerk on a daily basis for several days consecutively, each time being told that nothing had been changed. Finally we told the court clerk to call us if something happened, and he agreed to do so. That call never came.
In the meantime, Sanders told us that he actually DOES have a GED, and has had one all along, but that the papers to support it are not on file. He then, in a private conversation, blamed the matter on Sheriff James Robinson.
•In February, Sanders' plea was changed from "guilty" to "no-contest," but PA Thomas Deen said that it really didn't make a difference as far as running for public office is concerned because of the nature of the alleged crime. Sanders released a statement to us saying that he had been the victim of "a political witch hunt" and said that he intended to run for sheriff and would announce officially the following week.
•In March, Sanders declared for office officially. He requested that we not give any backstory about his court case in the release. Begrungingly, I complied with his wish. But even his own release made some mentions of the Kenneth Atkins case, as well as of Robinson, and I omitted these in order to keep from having to explain the entire situation all over again in print, which he himself said that he did not want us to do. Earlier in the month Sanders had requested that his record be expunged so that he could appear on the ballot.
•This month, Sanders' request to have his record expunged was denied. Afterwards he was approached for comment and he vowed that he still was going to appear on the ballot. The other major players in his case--Deen and Robinson--also were approached for comment, according to standard protocol, in which time Deen called Sanders "delusional" and Robinson said that he is a "known liar" and has issues with alcohol. The next week we received a letter from his wife that gave her side of the story, and this week we have this letter from his daughter that does the same.
I can't speak for any other publication or TV station (because more than one has been covering this story), but I've got absolutely no dog in this hunt on a personal level, and as a newspaper staff, we're simply trying to be fair with all sides involved. Naturally the Sanders family feels as though it's been given a raw deal because of the coverage of the court case, but as you can see above, in each and every situation, Sanders has been approached for comment or has had his say publicly in court. He also has had much more unfiltered access to the newspaper page than anybody on the other side of the fence has had, since he has released at least two different statements directly, and now there have been two different letters. The opposing side has been allowed to comment just as he has been, but has not released any written statements to us and has written no letters.
This is a classic case of he-said, she-said (or in this case, he-said, he-said), and there has been a lot of finger-pointing going around. At this point I have no idea who is telling the truth and who isn't—that is for the court, and the public, to decide, not for journalists to decide. My feeling is that members of the public made up their minds about this case a long time ago, either one way or the other.
A journalist's job, as you will read in The Weekender this week, is to present the information—not to judge it and then release those judgments.
Here's the timeline of the Sanders case from our end:
•In May of 2005, while on medical leave, Sanders was told that he could not return to his position because of credibility questions stemming from the GED records that he later pled guilty to fabricating. We gave Sanders a chance to respond to the allegations, but he did not return our phone calls.
•In December of 2005, Sanders pled guilty to the allegations. A week later, one of his supporters complained that both we and the Ledger had our stories wrong, that Sanders actually had pled no contest instead of guilty. A guilty plea would have kept him from running for public office. However, we checked the court documents related to the case—which by the way are public record—and they showed that Sanders had signed his name to a guilty plea agreement.
Within days we were told that the guilty plea happened because of a snafu at the courthouse and that it would be rectified later that same week. We checked back with the clerk on a daily basis for several days consecutively, each time being told that nothing had been changed. Finally we told the court clerk to call us if something happened, and he agreed to do so. That call never came.
In the meantime, Sanders told us that he actually DOES have a GED, and has had one all along, but that the papers to support it are not on file. He then, in a private conversation, blamed the matter on Sheriff James Robinson.
•In February, Sanders' plea was changed from "guilty" to "no-contest," but PA Thomas Deen said that it really didn't make a difference as far as running for public office is concerned because of the nature of the alleged crime. Sanders released a statement to us saying that he had been the victim of "a political witch hunt" and said that he intended to run for sheriff and would announce officially the following week.
•In March, Sanders declared for office officially. He requested that we not give any backstory about his court case in the release. Begrungingly, I complied with his wish. But even his own release made some mentions of the Kenneth Atkins case, as well as of Robinson, and I omitted these in order to keep from having to explain the entire situation all over again in print, which he himself said that he did not want us to do. Earlier in the month Sanders had requested that his record be expunged so that he could appear on the ballot.
•This month, Sanders' request to have his record expunged was denied. Afterwards he was approached for comment and he vowed that he still was going to appear on the ballot. The other major players in his case--Deen and Robinson--also were approached for comment, according to standard protocol, in which time Deen called Sanders "delusional" and Robinson said that he is a "known liar" and has issues with alcohol. The next week we received a letter from his wife that gave her side of the story, and this week we have this letter from his daughter that does the same.
I can't speak for any other publication or TV station (because more than one has been covering this story), but I've got absolutely no dog in this hunt on a personal level, and as a newspaper staff, we're simply trying to be fair with all sides involved. Naturally the Sanders family feels as though it's been given a raw deal because of the coverage of the court case, but as you can see above, in each and every situation, Sanders has been approached for comment or has had his say publicly in court. He also has had much more unfiltered access to the newspaper page than anybody on the other side of the fence has had, since he has released at least two different statements directly, and now there have been two different letters. The opposing side has been allowed to comment just as he has been, but has not released any written statements to us and has written no letters.
This is a classic case of he-said, she-said (or in this case, he-said, he-said), and there has been a lot of finger-pointing going around. At this point I have no idea who is telling the truth and who isn't—that is for the court, and the public, to decide, not for journalists to decide. My feeling is that members of the public made up their minds about this case a long time ago, either one way or the other.
A journalist's job, as you will read in The Weekender this week, is to present the information—not to judge it and then release those judgments.
