A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[BigW]

38 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

some reviews in the past actually had "threats to kick your ### next time I see you". 

 

usually would see them the next show, and they'd say nothing. 

I dunno, that's crazy. I dunno... my response to crap like that, "bring it".  Too old and tired to let folks like that bring me down and I'm feistier than some might assume.

[Terri Schehr]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

some reviews in the past actually had "threats to kick your ### next time I see you". 

 

usually would see them the next show, and they'd say nothing. 

Or in my case,  they’d scurry off as fast as their little legs would take them.  

[N.E. Brigand]

On 11/8/2018 at 6:13 AM, garfield said:

IIMO, Dan deserves the benefit of the doubt for this effort.

The rest here is mostly just speculation and re-defining the past.

IMO, of course.

EDIT to add:  "The greatest danger is that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the [arguing] parties than by a real demonstration of innocence or guilt."  -  Hamilton

That quote from Federalist #65 can cut both ways, of course. It's a discussion of the proposed Senate's powers for trying officials who have been impeached. Hamilton explicitly notes that this is a political rather than a judicial proceeding, and in the line which you quote, he's observing not only that an elected official whose conduct was proper might be convicted by members of an opposing party, but also that an elected official who conduct was improper might be acquitted by members of his own party.

[2muchcoffeeman]

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:59 AM, garfield said:

The reporter refuses to discuss who, what, when, or where. 

Hers was a perfunctory contact where she knew going in that Dan was not going to talk. 

If she were actually “presenting an opportunity to respond”, she would have spilled her own beans instead of expecting  Dan to do that alone.  

 

6 hours ago, JackTripper said:

Your statement is false.

25+ years in the daily news business here. It is true that a reporter has no obligation to show a story to a source before it is published. Indeed, it is unethical to do so. (Do you want the mayor approving each story about him/her before it is published?) By extension, reporters are not obligated  to reveal all whos, whats, and wheres in a story when asking a source for comment.

At the same time, it also is true that a reporter is ethically obligated to inform the source of the whos, whats and wheres in those cases where the whos, whats and wheres are the basis for seeking the response in the first place. If Source A says Source B embezzled $10,000 from his employer, the reporter is obligated to relay to Source B the name of the accuser, the amount being alleged to have been stolen, and the alleged victim -- not only as a matter of fairness, but also as a matter of obtaining a meaningful response. In such a situation, simply asking Source B "what do you think of the (anonymous, unspecified) accusations against you?" would elicit a meaningless response because Source B has no idea what he's being accused of. Similarly, telling Source B only that "Source A says you embezzled money. Any response?" is a failure of the fairness standard and also so vague that any response could be interpreted a thousand ways, which would be (again) unfair to Source B and frustrating to readers.

So, in this specific case involving Dan, everything hinges on the specifics. It may be true that they "knew going in that Dan was not going to talk." Yet they still made the call, apparently. That's what serious news organizations, whose company includes the Inquirer, do. 

 

 

[Jeff Ream]

https://www.wfmz.com/news/lehigh-valley/sex-assault-charges-filed-against-former-allentown-cadets-director/861626291

[Fran Haring]

22 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

At the same time, it also is true that a reporter is ethically obligated to inform the source of the whos, whats and wheres in those cases where the whos, whats and wheres are the basis for seeking the response in the first place. If Source A says Source B embezzled $10,000 from his employer, the reporter is obligated to relay to Source B the name of the accuser, the amount being alleged to have been stolen, and the alleged victim -- not only as a matter of fairness, but also as a matter of obtaining a meaningful response.

So, in this specific case involving Dan, everything hinges on the specifics. It may be true that they "knew going in that Dan was not going to talk." Yet they still made the call, apparently. That's what serious news organizations, whose company includes the Inquirer, do. 

 

Well said. On the money.  (I clipped some of the response to make this post shorter.) 

When I was in radio news... the Board of Ed in our city was notorious for having a "bunker mentality" when dealing with the media on just about everything, even "good news" stories about the school district.  You'd think you were dealing with the CIA instead of school officials.  LOL. 

So... if a story came up... say, a local official accusing the board of something... we'd do our due diligence, call the board, tell them we wanted to speak with them about the specific allegations, from that specific person... no "gotcha" questions, just giving the board a chance to respond. They would almost never do the interview with us. So... we reported the story with the standard "we attempted to reach the school board and they declined comment." It was their loss, IMO.  We tried.

Perhaps there are similarities regarding this reporter, this story, and the effort to reach the DCI front office.  (NOT saying the front office has that same "bunker mentality" of the school district we dealt with. Heck... that would be tough to top.  LOL)

Of course, like you said... the devil is in the details.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Fran Haring

[garfield]

On 11/12/2018 at 11:16 AM, JackTripper said:

Your statement is false.

Ok, thank you.  Tell me more about your position.

[garfield]

19 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

That quote from Federalist #65 can cut both ways, of course. It's a discussion of the proposed Senate's powers for trying officials who have been impeached. Hamilton explicitly notes that this is a political rather than a judicial proceeding, and in the line which you quote, he's observing not only that an elected official whose conduct was proper might be convicted by members of an opposing party, but also that an elected official who conduct was improper might be acquitted by members of his own party.

There is only one person on the entire Planet who I expected to make this post.

 

[BigW]

2 hours ago, Fran Haring said:

the Board of Ed in our city was notorious for having a "bunker mentality" when dealing with the media on just about everything, even "good news" stories about the school district.  You'd think you were dealing with the CIA instead of school officials.  LOL.  Rarely did they ever do an interview with us, about anything.

The Harrisburg City Schools are also notorious for this. When I taught there, the new teachers were herded together and told by the PR director we were to get permission from him to talk to the local paper about ANYTHING. Given their abject failure for decades and the nincompoop admins and school boards they have had in place for that time for the most part... And I use nincompoop politely. The situation's been loathsome.

[Lance]

completely wrong thread

 

not drunk

 

sorry

Edited November 14, 2018 by Lance