Yesterday the Norwich Bulletin published an editorial about the Amero case. In a backhanded way they called for some responsibility to fall on Robert Hartz’ shoulders (Robert Hartz was the district IT administrator):
However, Amero is not the only one to blame. Pornographic sites should never have been able to appear on that school computer. The fact the school’s protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district. Whoever did not do their job to ensure the proper fees were paid and the licensing was up-to-date deserves to be fired.
However, the gist of their editorial is that Julie Amero, and Julie Amero alone should bear the criminal responsibility for the appearance of porn on the computer. The double standard in that stance is the first river of dishonesty, but it doesn’t end there. Obviously the authors of the editorial didn’t bother to read the transcripts they published for the benefit of all to read, because they say this:
She even discussed the problem with students. Amero never went to the main office and did not discuss the issue with the principal until the next day, when she was questioned.
River of Lies #1: There was no testimony that Amero discussed this with students (beyond booting 2 of them off the computer before the popups appeared), but there WAS testimony that she had: a) gone to the teacher’s lounge to seek help; b) reported the incident to the vice principal the very same day it happened; and c) discussed it with the principal the following day.
Then there is this interesting spin on the case, offered with no facts to support the contention:
It’s an unlikely sentence, even though children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero’s watch.
River of Lies #2: By wording this to suggest that the children ‘were exposed to six hours’ of porn, the Bulletin twists the facts and ignores Amero’s efforts to physically place herself between the students and the monitor, her efforts to close the windows, etc. This single statement proves the ingrained bias of the editorial board. My first instinct when reading this was that this was an editorial written by the prosecutor! I was amazed to discover that the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin authored it.
As if that spin weren’t enough, they offer this indictment of the experts who have risen to Amero’s defense:
Amero has many supporters, which should not sway the court, as most of them have formed opinions based on limited knowledge of the facts of the case, or simple hearsay. At the heart of this international debate is whether Amero was responsible for causing the pornography to be on the computer screen for an entire school day…
River of Lies #3: The experts and supporters of Julie Amero have read the transcripts (evidently much more thoroughly than the NB did), examined a mirror copy of the hard drive of the computer in question, and donated their time and talent to Julie Amero because the verdict is just wrong. The ones operating on simple hearsay with no facts before them are the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin.
Now, newspapers are entitled to print editorials as pure opinion, but it’s a pretty sad day when the opinion isn’t based upon the facts of the case. In a day and age where we are fortunate enough to have primary source documents available via electronic access, there is no excuse for the PUBLISHER of those documents to ignore them and spin the facts to support their opinion with no foundation or effort at intellectual honesty.
As I mulled over what possible reason they’d have for revving up the tar-and-feather engine 2 weeks ahead of sentencing again, it occurred to me that perhaps their page views had fallen off since they published the transcripts and they viewed this as a way to bump traffic and revenue again.
The Norwich Bulletin advertisers should seriously consider whether advertising on this site works to their benefit. I’m seriously tempted to suggest an advertiser boycott for this incredible excuse for a rag of a newspaper.
Alex Kantor has some more enlightenment for them on his blog, too.
My suggestion to Connecticut newspaper subscribers: Switch to the Hartford Courant. At least their reporters make the time to actually check their facts with primary sources.
Technorati Tags: Norwich Bulletin, journalism, reporting, editorials, ethics, law
