Ink blotter, part 2

I’ll start off by saying that I hadn’t intended to write anymore about this issue other than my first post because, well, everything was pretty much said in that initial posting on the subject.  However, what has spurred these other posts is less about the incident that happened, but rather the reaction — or non reaction — by our local media and by some commenters to diminish the severity of domestic violence in general.  Calling it a “family problem” holds with it the implication that no one should ever mention the fact that domestic violence exists.   Given the National Convention on Health and Domestic Violence is convening in San Francisco beginning today, the national attention from San Francisco Sherriff Ross Mirkarimi’s case, as well as the conflict over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act it would seem like this conversation — even had in the abstract with this incident as the local “hook” — would be timely and appropriate.   With statistics like:

Nearly one in four women in the United States reports experiencing violence by a current or former spouse or boyfriend at some point in her life.

This should be alarming to people, but time and time again when the subject of domestic violence emerges, few want to touch it because of the belief that domestic violence is a “family problem.”   While individual community members have that luxury, it is incumbent on our media types to change the way we, as a society, discuss and think about domestic violence in our communities.

There seems to be this belief that there is a set of immutable laws set in stone regarding journalism and journalistic standards.   There isn’t.   In this age of new media, a more social approach to news gathering and news making is slowly gaining traction (see coverage of Occupy efforts and Trayvon Martin as two notable examples), attempting to fit every type of media into one tiny box is a failure to appreciate the power of social networks.

Yesterday, I wrote about the seeming inconsistencies in the Alameda Sun’s listing on its blotter on the subject of domestic violence arrests, but I think a really good example of the evolving nature of journalism and how it’s much less an exact science than an art form is Michele Ellson’s coverage of the police blotter on her old news site: the Island of Alameda.

In February and March of 2010, not only were domestic violence items a part of the blotter, but the names of the alleged assailants were a part of the blotter too.   But given the ever changing nature of media coverage, by the next year February (here too) and March of 2011, the items were still there but the names had been stripped.

But let me step away from the type of criminal act for one second and talk about the notability and newsworthiness of certain stories.   Since I’m on the subject of Michele Ellson’s old site The Island of Alameda, here’s a perfect example.   I probably had mentioned this case previously, but let me remind you of the details.  On June 15, 2010, published on the Island was a story about Mark Irons and David Howard involving a confrontation between the two after which David Howard promptly went to the police department and attempted to get a Restraining Order against Mark Irons.   At that point, no police charges had been filed against Mark Irons, the court date had been set for June 25, and the legal paperwork had not even been served against Mark Irons before this became “news.”

So what was it that made this story interesting and relevant?  Certainly not the criminal aspect, as no charges had been filed.  It was the notability of the people involved that made it newsworthy, as David Howard himself phrased it, they both:

“participate[d] vigorously in local community and political issues through letters-to-the-editor, online forums, City Council meetings, public forums and the like.”

But let’s pretend that David Howard had not done anything else notable since the Measure E related incident.   Even though he has, but let’s just say that after that incident he melted away and became your average Joe.   Here’s the thing.   On Michele Ellson’s new news site, the Alameda Community News Project, she herself made him notable and noteworthy only two days before the arrest by featuring him prominently in an article about the sales tax opposition campaign:

An opponent of a proposed half-cent sales tax increase launched his campaign against the tax Tuesday.

Alameda activist and blogger David Howard said the proposed Measure C sales tax increase that’s due to appear on the June 5 ballot was pushed through without adequate public input. [emphasis added]

Of the almost twenty paragraphs in the piece, almost all of them reference David Howard or reference his talking points.

And on the afternoon of the day of the arrest, she tweeted out breaking information from David Howard regarding the failure to turn in the opposing argument in a timely manner:

#Alameda tax opponent responds: Says county led him to believe deadline for arguments was today; "We are considering our legal options"

— Michele Ellson (@TheAlamedan) March 16, 2012

Says #Alameda County Registrar of Voters accepted ballot argument, then said they wouldn't accept it; deadline was apparently Thursday

— Michele Ellson (@TheAlamedan) March 16, 2012

And even after he was still being quoted as the spokesperson for the anti-Measure C campaign.

Adding to these examples is the fact that David Howard was quoted in one of the very first article on the Alameda Community News Project as “a longtime critic of state and local redevelopment efforts.”

So all these words expended to conclude thus:  It can’t be both.  An individual cannot be a source that journalists revisit time and time again as a someone worthwhile to provide expertise on certain subjects whether it is redevelopment and/or a political campaign, yet not “notable” enough to report about when there are actual criminal charges filed against him.

A good gauge for what makes a person a “public figure” and therefore subject to scrutiny is probably best summed up by the legal definition of a public figure as it relates to defamation law, because let’s face it, talk about journalistic “ethics” and “standards” may be high and lofty goals but the bottom line is no one wants to get sued.   A “public figure” is not just elected officials and  police officers, but rather:

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.

So all this hand-wringing about elected officials vs people who inject themselves into public and  political discussions and try to influence the process and outcome is obfuscating the issue.   If a person is notable enough to be held up as an expert on several subject matters by a journalist or reporter, then regardless of that person’s value as a source of information — or maybe because of it — a criminal allegation and/or a criminal charge by prosecutors shouldn’t be ignored simply because it happened within someone’s home or is one’s go-to source for information.

While my own personal issues with the individual in question makes anything I write about the topic easier to dismiss as a personal vendetta, the point of these last two posts have been about the failure of some of Alameda’s local news media (because Alameda Patch did cover the issue) to address this topic for a variety of unstated reasons.

Updated:  the bulk of this post was written prior to Michele Ellson posting about the revival of the Domestic Violence Task Force in Alameda. Which is a good first step in opening the discussion about the prevalence of domestic violence and the difficulty in getting victims to even report the crimes, let alone go through the entire process of cooperation with prosecutors.