Yesterday I posted an exchange between Chicago Tribune reporter Howard Witt and a resident of Paris, Texas who is critical of Mr. Witt’s reporting.  Witt’s letter, frequently referenced in the comments below, can be found here.

Back Atcha, Mr. Witt

Well, I guess I should thank Mr. Witt for the spelling instruction.  I’m also pleased to know he has no predisposition he is just “interested in the struggles of this east Texas town as it grapples with its troubles with race relations.”  What a relief. 

I’m sure Mr. Witt’s lack of agenda is why we had the opportunity to learn the critically important to the story information that the event he was covering was “held in a hall at the Paris Fairgrounds, the precise spot where, a century ago, thousands of white citizens gathered to cheer ritualized lynchings of blacks chaining them to a flagpole or lashing them to a scaffold before setting them on fire.”  No question about it, no agenda there.

I apologize for the following nit picking:

Mr. Witt dismisses Ms Cotton’s history of problems and claims he detailed them by pointing out that in one story he wrote, “Shaquanda started getting written up a lot after her mother became involved in a protest march in front of a school” according to an attorney with Lone Star Legal Aid, and, continuing, “some of the write-ups weren’t fair to her or accurate, so we felt like we had to challenge each one to get the whole story.” 

Mr. Witt then goes on to catalog three incidents that do, indeed, seem minor and, in one case, completely inaccurate.  What he doesn’t do is say how many in what period of time.  I understand — a lot over a short period — but maybe he knows better, possibly he could enlighten us. 

Her attorney says “some” weren’t fair — clearly “some” were. 

Mr Witt informs us through his response that the “hall monitor was examined at the emergency room and released” and that, “her medical records indicate (I have no idea how Mr. Witt got those) that she suffered no serious injury.”  Which is good. 

I’m not an expert on Mr Witt’s reporting but as, in this instance he did not quote himself or one of his stories, I would assume he has not reported that the hall monitor was transported from the scene in an ambulance and examined in an emergency room.  Why were these circumstances — that seem pretty important — totally ignored? 

I might suggest they don’t contribute to the non-existent agenda. 

Mr. Witt goes on to note that Ms. Cotton’s sentence was extended by TYC officials for minimal infractions.  If infraction is the TYC was run by neanderthals, he’s “preaching to the choir.”

Mr Witt claims that he has been accurate in his reporting of Ms. Cotton’s sentence because he reported it as “up to seven years.”  Again, I’m not an expert on Mr. Witt’s reporting but I don’t recall seeing “up to” in every story and I sure don’t recall seeing it in related stories. 

I also think his claim is a joke.  “Up to seven” means seven just like “up to life” means life and “could be death” means death.  It would be far more accurate, although considerably less inflammatory, to say “indeterminent” and explain what it means indeterminate I’m glad there’s no agenda.

Lastly, Mr. Witt claims the only reason that “the writer (that would be me) knows about what happened to the ‘white arsonist’  (that being that she did not make her probation and was assaulted while under TYC jurisdiction) is because I ( Mr. Witt) broke the story about what happened to her…”

Mr. Witt doesn’t have an agenda but he has an ego.   He is flatly wrong, his reporting made no contribution to my knowledge of either of these events, and he completely dodged the point — probably my fault for overwriting — which was three fold: First, the “white arsonist” attacked a house, the “black assaulter” attacked a person.  Even in Texas, for the most part, we rate people above property. 

Second, the “white arsonist” was a victim of domestic abuse and was acting out. 

Third, the psychologist and the advocates that reviewed the cases recommended the sentences that were handed out.

There’s more but we’ll save it for later.  Witt is not wrong but he is wrong directed.  He is correct that there are inequalities in the system — most of them have to do with who the victim is; after that, who the perpetrator is — but they aren’t limited to Paris, or limited to Texas, or limited to the South. 

He did come to Paris looking for a discrimination story and he has hopscotched through (or over and under emphasized) the facts.