Norwich Bulletin Oozes Intellectual Dishonesty in Amero Case
Posted by Karoli in News March 20th, 2007
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 The fact the school’s protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district.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
Sphere: Related Content
…living life in 19/7 time 
Karoli, I wholeheartedly agree with you: the Norwich Bulletin “viewed this as a way to bump traffic and revenue again”. This is precisely what I concluded when I read its most recent editorial and it is why I will not post there. The editorial board simply can’t be that stupid. By now, it surely knows the facts. Rather than carry out its obligation to express a responsible opinion based on facts, it chooses to profit on the back of Julie Amero by following the Ann Coulter formula for financial gain. (Outrageous = $$$$$) The Norwich Bulletin should not be sold on newsstands; it should be sold in same aisle as Charmin and Scott toilet tissue. At least in that location it would serve a some useful purpose. (My apologies to Charmin and Scott for this suggestion)
The mendacity and vindictiveness of the Norwich Bulletin’s coverage of this case turns my stomach. Thanks to you and to Alex Kantor for hammering away at the truth.
But, sadly, it’s like whack-a-mole.
The Norwich Bulletin is so bad that when I put a copy of it in my cat liter box my cat won’t use it ..t jsut says “that would be reduntant.
This rag (Norwich Bulletin) is beyond redemption.
They claim that everyone else’s opinion is based on “hersay”…yet do a search on their own website for any of the major players
Loundsberry
Fain
Hartz
any of them and you come away with zero results.
How can people be informed when their local paper wont inform them
Maybe someone should checkout the Norwich Bulletin’s editorial board member list and compare it to the school board list, the school employee list, and other related lists. Could be a connection…
The Bulletin in the last 3 days has brought up the Amero case both times in a negative manner and both times hiding behind “editorial opinion” refusing to attach thier name to thier attacks.
This paper even goes so far to complain that:
“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.”
Now as of 9:00AM 3/22/07 if you try to get information from the “Julie Amero Porn Trial” Special section you get a blank page (except for an advertisement)
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/70223080&template=theme&theme=JULIE%20AMERO%20TRIAL
This is nothing short of “JOURNALISTIC TERRORISM”.
How can the community which this paper is supposed to serve accept this type of behavior any longer?
How can the community accept it’s local paper to hold someones life up to public ridicule while hiding their own identity and while removing what they have published from public scutiny?
As another poster suggested…
“Toyota? Chelsea Groton? Savings Institute Bank & Trust? Patriot Home Improvement? Why would you wish to have your valued branding associated with such shoddy work?…..as well as Gannett’s corporate office ought to be very interested in the standards of journalism being displayed by your newspaper, editorial staff and by your reporters.”
The time for this is now.
The saying ” All that is needed for evil to thrive is for good men to remain silent” is more than ever the case with the Bulletin.
I think you are on the right track, Farsidman. The Amero case and, from what I read online and elsewhere, all the government systems in Norwich, including the school system, cry out for some good investigative reporting. Down here on Long Island, great investigative reporting by “Newsday” has led to the exposure, indictment, conviction and imprisonment of numerous public officials. In one school district, the superintendent, treasurer and others were convicted of stealing millions from the taxpayers. Just yesterday, five fire district commissioners, a fire district treasurer and two others were arrested after being indicted for theft. They are alleged to have stolen well over a million dollars from the taxpayers. It is alleged that the treasurer alone stole about $500,000.00. There is a long list of others who have been brought to justice by Newsday’s investigations. I’d like to see some of that type of investigative reporting done in Norwich. We know that the Norwich Bulletin won’t do it, but what about the Hartford Courant or others? They should recognize that in addition to performing a public service, it does sell newspapers. They might start with Robert Hartz, the Norwich school’s IT “specialist”. Based upon his testimony and his omissions in protecting the school’s computer network, he appears to have been entirely unqualified for his job. How did he get it? Who did he know when he was hired? Did he enhance his job application and/or resume? Did he have a familial, social or other relationship with any of those who hired him or with anyone who had influence over those responsible for hiring him? On the other hand, if he was somewhat qualified and DID know that pop-ups can produce pornography images or that one can be trapped in an endless pornography loop (as any real IT expert knows), did he perjure himself at Julie Amero’s trial? Would he have had a motive to do so? Well, let’s think about it. First, he had his own job to protect and probably a substantial salary to go with it. Second, he was certainly beholdin’ to those who hired him and while protecting himself, he protected them. Third, if the school district was receiving federal funds to be spent on the maintenance of the computer network, did he and the district violate the law and any regulations promulgated pursuant to it by failing to keep the system up to snuff? If so, might that have been a criminal violation? A civil fraud? A basis for the federal government to seek return of the funds and deny future funds? If those funds were received and were not spent on the computer network, where are they? Start digging Hartford Courant. Start digging Tribune. You know how to ask questions and use the Freedom of Information laws. You’ll perform a public service and at the same time sell newspapers. It sounds like Norwich might be ripe for harvest.
Hi everyone,
The NB Julie Amero feature is still available on their site — click here. I think they may have tweaked their link a bit.
That said, I agree with what you two are saying.
More journalistic ooze from the Bulletin:
Our view: State needs better screening process for all school staff
As a parent, you put your child on the school bus or drop her off at school, and you want to believe she is in safe hands. You want to believe the people you are entrusting your child to have been screened and trained.
Unfortunately, the news is filled with incidences that have made it clear schools and school buses are not always the safe places we hope they are.
Just last month, Norwich school bus driver Heather Powell was caught driving faster than 90 mph on Route 2 with two children in a school van. In January, Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero was found guilty of four counts of risk of injury to a minor for allowing seventh-grade students to see pornography on her computer screen.
Both women passed the basic criminal screening process, which includes federal and state fingerprint checks, to get their jobs. Basic is the problem. When adults are entrusted to care for children, they need more than basic screening.
New state Department of Motor Vehicle Commissioner Robert Ward already stopped the practice of issuing school bus drivers temporary licenses while a full background check is completed. Ward also instructed department staff to use the same standards that apply to teachers and coaches for criminal screenings, allowing for less flexibility for who gets a license.
Ward is pushing for legislation requiring all school bus companies to provide a monthly list of drivers to the department so background checks can become routine. It’s a good idea to ensure the safety of the state’s children.
The changes at the motor vehicle department would ensure parity across the state with the level of screening each school bus driver has. It’s a start.
When it comes to substitute teachers, there is no such thing as parity in hiring procedures between districts in the state. A Norwich Bulletin survey of districts in February revealed each district has a different pay scale and a different procedure for hiring substitutes. All must adhere to the state’s tiered criteria of first searching for certified teachers in specific subjects, then certified teachers, and then people with bachelor’s degrees. A superintendent can determine when a candidate does not meet the criteria, but is still qualified.
Many districts do not interview candidates, however. They review a resume. Training is minimal, if done at all. All districts reviewed substitutes with class visits, but how often and for how long is unclear.
Connecticut is a state that prefers individual municipalities determine their own courses of action. This issue is too important. The state Department of Education has to look at the situation much like the motor vehicle department did. It must establish minimal requirements for substitute teachers and the procedures for hiring them. An interview process would seem to be the minimum requirement, as well as in-depth reference checks.
Substitutes are entrusted with your children, sometimes for a full day and sometimes only for one class period. Parents, you have a right to know what procedures your school district is using to hire substitutes. And, you have the right to demand more of them.
More journalistic ooze from the Bulletin:
Our view: State needs better screening process for all school staff
As a parent, you put your child on the school bus or drop her off at school, and you want to believe she is in safe hands. You want to believe the people you are entrusting your child to have been screened and trained.
Unfortunately, the news is filled with incidences that have made it clear schools and school buses are not always the safe places we hope they are.
Just last month, Norwich school bus driver Heather Powell was caught driving faster than 90 mph on Route 2 with two children in a school van. In January, Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero was found guilty of four counts of risk of injury to a minor for allowing seventh-grade students to see pornography on her computer screen.
Both women passed the basic criminal screening process, which includes federal and state fingerprint checks, to get their jobs. Basic is the problem. When adults are entrusted to care for children, they need more than basic screening.
New state Department of Motor Vehicle Commissioner Robert Ward already stopped the practice of issuing school bus drivers temporary licenses while a full background check is completed. Ward also instructed department staff to use the same standards that apply to teachers and coaches for criminal screenings, allowing for less flexibility for who gets a license.
Ward is pushing for legislation requiring all school bus companies to provide a monthly list of drivers to the department so background checks can become routine. It’s a good idea to ensure the safety of the state’s children.
The changes at the motor vehicle department would ensure parity across the state with the level of screening each school bus driver has. It’s a start.
When it comes to substitute teachers, there is no such thing as parity in hiring procedures between districts in the state. A Norwich Bulletin survey of districts in February revealed each district has a different pay scale and a different procedure for hiring substitutes. All must adhere to the state’s tiered criteria of first searching for certified teachers in specific subjects, then certified teachers, and then people with bachelor’s degrees. A superintendent can determine when a candidate does not meet the criteria, but is still qualified.
Many districts do not interview candidates, however. They review a resume. Training is minimal, if done at all. All districts reviewed substitutes with class visits, but how often and for how long is unclear.
Connecticut is a state that prefers individual municipalities determine their own courses of action. This issue is too important. The state Department of Education has to look at the situation much like the motor vehicle department did. It must establish minimal requirements for substitute teachers and the procedures for hiring them. An interview process would seem to be the minimum requirement, as well as in-depth reference checks.
Substitutes are entrusted with your children, sometimes for a full day and sometimes only for one class period. Parents, you have a right to know what procedures your school district is using to hire substitutes. And, you have the right to demand more of them.
[...] of this was fascinating to me, particularly in light of my recent criticisms of the Norwich Bulletin and my own local newspaper, the Ventura County [...]