Residents of Cherokee were arrested in Tennessee and charged with armed robbery, according to the Cherokee One Feather. I don't really have a comment on the story itself, but I do have to note the source to the One Feather: The Pigeon Forge (Tenn.) Police Department.
While I can certain express my appreciation to the Cherokee Police Department for providing information to me, and to the Cherokee Times (likely against Principal Chief Michell Hicks' wishes), the tribe, as a whole, has a long way to go to let the sunshine in.
I must note that a request I made for information two years ago to Attorney General Annette Tarnawski still goes unanswered. The tribal public records law requires that either the requested information or an answer as to why it was denied must be given in 15 days. So far the only excuse offered by her office is "we've been busy."
The case in Pigeon Forge demonstrates the vast difference between other governments who honor the concept of open government and tribal government. The event in question happened last Saturday. The following Monday, the One Feather had enough information to run with a story.
Two days as opposed to two years.
Breaking Down Barriers in Sexual and Reproductive Health Reporting in Africa
-
*This is a guest post by Humphrey Nabimanya, founder of Reach a Hand
Uganda. *
[image: 2016-04-15-1460736651-1435623-huffpo1.jpg]*Journalists and bloggers...
8 years ago
5 comments:
Joe, while you damn the One Feather with your faint praise with this story, how about noting that the One Feather did NO investigation into the facts surounding this case. It simply ran a press release from the Gatlinburg police authorities? Not much investigation there when all they do was take an email release, which is obviously a biased take from the police who assume everyone is guilty of something, and insert it as the gospel truth of what happened into the pages to the paper. Some of us know there is a lot more to this story.
What happened to journalism where attempts are made to capture both sides of the story before putting something in print for perpetuity? Nothing on the internet ever goes away, as we all know, thanks partially to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Could the One Feather, upon receiving this release (which is not unusual) have dug a little bit deeper and tried to interview family, attorneys for those held, etc., even if such efforts result only in "X had no comment by press time", "Y could not be reached for comment", or "telephone calls to Z's attorney weren't immediately returned"? This would constitute a bit more objective journalism.
It irks me to no end when newspapers simply run police press releases. Reminds me of the old saying of federal prosecutors that once they run the press release, it's up to the Defendant to prove he's innocent. And they chuckle about it. Don't you think it kind of throws the old innocent until proven guilty in a court of law idea on its head? I mean, after all, that's only one of the very ideas our entire democracy exists on--that our government can't take away a person's freedom without a full and fair trial with all the constitutional protections afforded all in this country. Just a minor inconvenience to police and prosecutors, huh?
I would think you would support this objective journalism, partiularly given your bravery in standing up and speaking truth to power as the paper's former editor. Plus given your journalistic background, in about half the world, you would have been thrown in jail had you printed some of the things you printed about TINO (Transparent in Name Only) Hicks! And fortunately you've got the access and resources of good lawyers to fight your case.
Good luck in October. Although I smell a last minute settlement offer by the Tribe in the interest of keeping TINO Hicks, Tarnawsky, H. Smith, B. Johnson, and all the rest of the Hicks goons from having to take the stand. Get paid Joe! You deserve it.
Joe, while you damn the One Feather with your faint praise with this story, how about noting that the One Feather did NO investigation into the facts surounding this case. It simply ran a press release from the Gatlinburg police authorities? Not much investigation there when all they do was take an email release, which is obviously a biased take from the police who assume everyone is guilty of something, and insert it as the gospel truth of what happened into the pages to the paper. Some of us know there is a lot more to this story.
What happened to journalism where attempts are made to capture both sides of the story before putting something in print for perpetuity? Nothing on the internet ever goes away, as we all know, thanks partially to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Could the One Feather, upon receiving this release (which is not unusual) have dug a little bit deeper and tried to interview family, attorneys for those held, etc., even if such efforts result only in "X had no comment by press time", "Y could not be reached for comment", or "telephone calls to Z's attorney weren't immediately returned"? This would constitute a bit more objective journalism.
It irks me to no end when newspapers simply run police press releases. Reminds me of the old saying of federal prosecutors that once they run the press release, it's up to the Defendant to prove he's innocent. And they chuckle about it. Don't you think it kind of throws the old innocent until proven guilty in a court of law idea on its head? I mean, after all, that's only one of the very ideas our entire democracy exists on--that our government can't take away a person's freedom without a full and fair trial with all the constitutional protections afforded all in this country. Just a minor inconvenience to police and prosecutors, huh?
I would think you would support this objective journalism, partiularly given your bravery in standing up and speaking truth to power as the paper's former editor. Plus given your journalistic background, in about half the world, you would have been thrown in jail had you printed some of the things you printed about TINO (Transparent in Name Only) Hicks! And fortunately you've got the access and resources of good lawyers to fight your case.
Good luck in October. Although I smell a last minute settlement offer by the Tribe in the interest of keeping TINO Hicks, Tarnawsky, H. Smith, B. Johnson, and all the rest of the Hicks goons from having to take the stand.
Get paid Joe! You deserve it.
Joe, while you damn the One Feather with your faint praise with this story, how about noting that the One Feather did NO investigation into the facts surounding this case. It simply ran a press release from the Gatlinburg police authorities? Not much investigation there when all they do was take an email release, which is obviously a biased take from the police who assume everyone is guilty of something, and insert it as the gospel truth of what happened into the pages to the paper. Some of us know there is a lot more to this story.
What happened to journalism where attempts are made to capture both sides of the story before putting something in print for perpetuity? Nothing on the internet ever goes away, as we all know, thanks partially to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Could the One Feather, upon receiving this release (which is not unusual) have dug a little bit deeper and tried to interview family, attorneys for those held, etc., even if such efforts result only in "X had no comment by press time", "Y could not be reached for comment", or "telephone calls to Z's attorney weren't immediately returned"? This would constitute a bit more objective journalism.
It irks me to no end when newspapers simply run police press releases. Reminds me of the old saying of federal prosecutors that once they run the press release, it's up to the Defendant to prove he's innocent. And they chuckle about it. Don't you think it kind of throws the old innocent until proven guilty in a court of law idea on its head? I mean, after all, that's only one of the very ideas our entire democracy exists on--that our government can't take away a person's freedom without a full and fair trial with all the constitutional protections afforded all in this country. Just a minor inconvenience to police and prosecutors, huh?
I would think you would support this objective journalism, partiularly given your bravery in standing up and speaking truth to power as the paper's former editor. Plus given your journalistic background, in about half the world, you would have been thrown in jail had you printed some of the things you printed about TINO (Transparent in Name Only) Hicks! And fortunately you've got the access and resources of good lawyers to fight your case.
Good luck in October. Although I smell a last minute settlement offer by the Tribe in the interest of keeping TINO Hicks, Tarnawsky, H. Smith, B. Johnson, and all the rest of the Hicks goons from having to take the stand.
Get paid Joe! You deserve it.
Joe, while you damn the One Feather with your faint praise with this story, how about noting that the One Feather did NO investigation into the facts surounding this case. It simply ran a press release from the Gatlinburg police authorities? Not much investigation there when all they do was take an email release, which is obviously a biased take from the police who assume everyone is guilty of something, and insert it as the gospel truth of what happened into the pages to the paper. Some of us know there is a lot more to this story.
What happened to journalism where attempts are made to capture both sides of the story before putting something in print for perpetuity? Nothing on the internet ever goes away, as we all know, thanks partially to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Could the One Feather, upon receiving this release (which is not unusual) have dug a little bit deeper and tried to interview family, attorneys for those held, etc., even if such efforts result only in "X had no comment by press time", "Y could not be reached for comment", or "telephone calls to Z's attorney weren't immediately returned"? This would constitute a bit more objective journalism.
It irks me to no end when newspapers simply run police press releases. Reminds me of the old saying of federal prosecutors that once they run the press release, it's up to the Defendant to prove he's innocent. And they chuckle about it. Don't you think it kind of throws the old innocent until proven guilty in a court of law idea on its head? I mean, after all, that's only one of the very ideas our entire democracy exists on--that our government can't take away a person's freedom without a full and fair trial with all the constitutional protections afforded all in this country. Just a minor inconvenience to police and prosecutors, huh?
I would think you would support this objective journalism, partiularly given your bravery in standing up and speaking truth to power as the paper's former editor. Plus given your journalistic background, in about half the world, you would have been thrown in jail had you printed some of the things you printed about TINO (Transparent in Name Only) Hicks! And fortunately you've got the access and resources of good lawyers to fight your case.
Good luck in October. Although I smell a last minute settlement offer by the Tribe in the interest of keeping TINO Hicks, Tarnawsky, H. Smith, B. Johnson, and all the rest of the Hicks goons from having to take the stand.
Get paid Joe! You deserve it.
I appreciate your remarks Evelyn and Captain Kangaroo. My point was more about access to information than it was the story itself.
Yes, common journalistic practices would've given newspapers enough to go on just with the press release. The nature of the business kind of backs them in a corner. Of course publications should always welcome comment from the other side, and defense attorneys can always take the bull by the balls and call the papers themselves. Unfortunately, they tend to advocate that the accused keep quiet.
I will say that the tribe's access to information law is not being followed or enforced. That's the point I was making.
Post a Comment