Old News, But A Classic Example

Posted by kam76 on January 8, 2008 at 2:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"POLICE INVESTIGATE OFFICER INVOLVED IN SHOOTING"
Did the author of article write this headline or was it written by someone above her pay grade?

Let me get this straight: An APD officer working a shift during which a disproportionate number of violent crimes occur responds to an in-progress violent domestic disturbance. According to your reporting, back-up was not immediately available to this officer. Situations such as the one involving Mr. Holt usually devolve into the realm of life-threatening danger to the officer within a matter of seconds, not minutes, so back-up would have had to have arrived pretty much at the same time the original officer arrived. The responding officer confronted an intoxicated and combative suspect who clearly intended the officer harm and had no qualms about fighting with the police. THIS OFFICER DID HIS JOB.

To Ms. Hsu and the management of the ARN, this headline is SHAMEFUL, MISLEADING, AND UNFAIR TO BOTH THE OFFICER AND THE APD. On its surface, this headline smacks of an attempt to sensationalize the unfortunate and devastating reality that police officers are sometimes required to employ deadly force in order to uphold the law and safeguard their personal well-being. No police officer EVER wants to be put in a position where he is required to use deadly force against another person, but the nature of our profession demands that we be willing (God forbid) to do so.

I have been in law enforcement for several years, and this headline seems deliberately vague. I believe it was worded in this way with the intention of attracting readers. This is as pathetic a display of journalistic dishonesty as I have ever encountered. Congratulations. The ARN has succeeded in characterizing a dedicated public servant as a murderer even though he acted in the only manner he could in order to save his own life (WHILE IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS JOB OF PROTECTING THE CITIZENS - INCLUDING EVERYONE WORKING FOR THE ARN). I hope my disgust with regard this incident is apparent.

Posted by squid on January 8, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The media would much rather there be a 'story' here. Sensational sells papers, the story of an Officer doing his/her job in a textbook manner is boring.

Posted by Bluethunder on January 8, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

KAM I couldnt agree with you anymore. Maybe the headline should read " Abilene Police investigate Abilene Reporter News for misrepresenting the truth".

Now that would raise a few eyebrows.

Posted by Bluethunder on January 8, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abilene Reporter News : " We specialize in unfair and biased reporting. Bringing you the news we want you to have".

Posted by liveNup on January 8, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. SO many better headlines ARN could have used!

Posted by ebtry on January 8, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" We specialize in unfair and biased reporting. Bringing you the news we want you to have".

Key words... "We WANT you to have"

Typical liberal establishment.

Hey editor? Still on vacation?

Posted by TexasTwister on January 8, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent post, kam.....thanks for your insight, and most of all your service to our community. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it standard procedure to put an officer on temporary paid leave when a weapon has been discharged in the line of duty...or a perp is shot? And not releasing the name of the officer is just common sense. The last thing he/she needs is reporters and others calling their home.

Editorially the headline should reflect the facts within the article. Nowhere in this article does it say the officer is being investigated. In fact, it says "the incident" is under investigation.

I've seen some horrendously written headlines and articles in this rag lately, but this one takes the prize. Totally misleading and dishonest, as well as accusatory of the officer for doing his job. Ms. Hsu and the ARN should be ashamed of themselves. A correction and apology should be written, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by potosidad on January 8, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They should change the name of the paper to the Abilene Distorter News. Much more accurate than reporter news.

Posted by davidc79536 on January 8, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about "Officer Safe in Justified Shooting" that sounds like a much better headline.

Posted by RangerHorn on January 8, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with everyone...

No where in the article does it say the APD is investigating the officer, it's says the APD is investigating the "incident." Big difference! Just seems like a poor taste in headlines. Should have been something along the lines of, "A Drunk Woman and Police Beater Put in Jail!"

Thanks APD for all you do keeping us safe!

Posted by kid50 on January 8, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First, if one wants to find the illuminating bias in the Reporter News’ handling of this report, one need not look further than the by-line last night where the arrested party was referred to as the “victim”. In today’s article, they ludicrously cite a shooting 35 years ago.

Second, a SUSPECT who chooses to fight with a police officer is only “unarmed” until he incapacitates the officer. At that point, the suspect is armed with the officer’s weapons including his sidearm. A police officer cannot afford to lose a fight, period.

Finally, Abilene Police Officers regularly approach dangerous calls alone either due to their lack of manpower or, more often, their personal desire to try to keep others from being hurt.

Posted by squid on January 8, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lemme help you out with headline writing ARN....

APD investigates Officer-involved shooting incident

Suspect in domestic disturbance shot by APD Officer

APD Officer shoots assault suspect, incident under investigation

all reminds me of the Don Henley song 'Dirty Laundry'

I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry

Posted by apricottx on January 8, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

squid, that perfectly defines Faux News.

I agree with the posters here that the headline was misleading. Upon reading the story, it appears the officer acted very reasonably and only wounded the suspect, and that it was justified.

Posted by mikeb on January 8, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I couldn't agree more with all the comments above. This is very similar to the headline about 3 years ago of "ACU Quarterback Faces Felony Charges." The headline sensationalized an article that had zero credibility and was full of inaccurracies that caused negative perceptions. That headline prompted me to cancel my daily subscription to the ARN. I suggest each of you to do the same if you haven't already. The Abilene media in general is third rate at best. We should demand more professionalism from those who report the news.

Posted by dalai-llama on January 8, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kam, great post.

A couple of questions:

The article doesn't say, but I would imagine that EVERY discharge of a duty weapon is subject to investigation. Is it safe to assume that putting the officer on paid leave while the incident is investigated is just standard operating procedure for ANY and ALL instances where a suspect is shot? If so, the article should have noted that this is just procedure and is IN NO WAY a reflection of the officer's conduct.

Second:

The article says the suspect was shot in the arm. When deadly force is employed, are y'all trained to shoot to wound first, go straight for center-mass, or is it up to the officer's discretion? (Note that I understand close-quarters work is nasty and frantic as hell; I am not questioning the officer's marksmanship, I'm just curious.)

As always, thanks for everything that y'all do. Public kudos are not as nice as a pay raise, but hopefully are better than nothing. If you have contact with the officer in question, please convey my gratitude.

Posted by squid on January 8, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

every use of force is subject to investigation, deadly force carries a suspension while the investigation is completed.

Officers are trained to shoot to stop, not to wound.

Posted by dalai-llama on January 8, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Squid,

Thank you, that answered my questions perfectly.

Posted by cromeensb on January 8, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks,

No doubt about it. The headline was not the best that could have been written. For that, we apologize.

It could have been both more accurate and precise.

Yes, it's standard procedure to investigate the shooting and the circumstances surrounding the shooting. We plan to have a follow up - hopefully in tomorrow's newspaper.

There is no conspiracy to smear the police or the officer involved. Nobody is characterizing the officer as a "murderer" as was stated above. There is nobody at the Reporter-News trying to find a way to bend a headline or a story to sell newspapers. There is no liberal agenda (frankly, that's a pretty tired argument - funny actually if you really looked at the pages of the newspaper and the stances it has historically taken).

For those of you who point out issues in a constructive manner and invite dialogue, I appreciate it.

Barton Cromeens
Editor
Abilene Reporter-News

Posted by stokeysrc on January 8, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's ridiculous. What's wrong with the headline? This sure is a Daggum Big Ol' Red State, ain't it fellers?

Posted by elizabeth on January 8, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh the Editor has chastised us all. Must go to corner... LOL

Posted by hillmichaels on January 8, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really don't know how anyone can run a newspaper in Abilene. Based on these comments, it's a town made up of third graders. Get a life people...

Posted by cmnchaz on January 8, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WHAT? I thought I was reading THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER!!!!

Posted by TexasTwister on January 8, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Cromeens -
I believe many of us commenting on this story and its headline have done so in a "constructive manner" and have "invited dialogue" as you have suggested.
Please, Mr. Cromeens, answer the question so many of us have posed. Where in the article does it say the police are investigating the officer? If, in fact, it is the "incident" and not the officer that is being investigated, do you not think the headline is inaccurate as well as misleading? And, if you do believe this and admit your mistake, why will you not admit it and change the headline?
I realize we are just the "unwashed masses" that actually buy your paper and pay your salary, but don't you think we deserve a simple act of respect by answering our questions?

Posted by liveNup on January 8, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Texas you know he is probably going to remove your post because you are ARN politically correct.

Posted by elizabeth on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The headline is almost as inaccurate as the ARN headline announcement yesterday calling Mr. Holt a "victim". Not trying to bash the ARN but please, please, please GET IT RIGHT

Posted by squid on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'For those of you who point out issues in a constructive manner and invite dialogue'

Goose step, March! !

Posted by TexasTwister on January 8, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by hillmichaels on January 8, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.
I really don't know how anyone can run a newspaper in Abilene. Based on these comments, it's a town made up of third graders. Get a life people..."

Interesting....you tell us to get a life, and yet you took the time to read the comments here and actually type one of your own (even though it was condescending and pointless).
Oh, by the way, I have a BBA and a Masters, so I guess I got a little farther than the 3rd grade.

Posted by wild_bill on January 8, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr Cromeens your comments here are certainly appropriate, but it would be even more appropriate if they were placed on the front page of your paper along with the follow up. You should absolutely include the information on APD's standard operating proceedure to put the officer on leave and investigate the deadly force usage.

You should also address Mr. Holt being called the "victim". If he's the victim of anything, it's his on stupidity and actions.

I've been reading 'your' paper longer than you've been working on it and liberal bias or not, your paper has a strong history of disparaging the local law enforcement agencies. Your paper has consistently taken an adversarial stance towards our police, deputies and fire personnel and it's time for it to stop. Being critical is fine, but being fair and unbiased is even more important.

I am strongly biased in favor of our local law enforcement and fire personnel and proud of it, but then I'm neither an employee of the ARN or the APD/AFD and I'm allowed to be as biased as I choose. You do not have that liberty any more than APD/AFD has.

Posted by dancarlson82 on January 8, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The headline seems pretty straightforward to me. There's a police officer who was involved in a shooting, and he's now being investigated. The headline doesn't pass judgment on the officer involved.

Barton, don't be afraid to stick to your guns and stand by your paper. You did nothing wrong here.

Posted by liveNup on January 8, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dan Who do you know working for ARN???? The ARN needs new reporters who know what facts are and can actually make a headline that is NOT misleading. Go back and reread TexasTwisters comment. I think he explains the problem with the ARNs headline and article.

Barton, retract & try again because you failed miserably this time!

Posted by Mellonello on January 8, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do our police officers NOT use tasers!! If not, they should! It seems to me by the article posted here last night, the officer didnt have a lot of time to do anything. He was dealing with TWO drunks. ONe a woman the other Male.
And that male wasnt going to be arrested, cause he fought the officer. Now, the officer used the best judgement he could at the TIME!!!

Posted by TexasTwister on January 8, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, Dan...

Let's say you're a fireman. You respond to a fire and are in the midst of putting it out when you come across the arsonist still in the building. He physically attacks you....you respond by whacking him unconscious with your fire axe and drag him out.

Tomorrow's headline in the ARN reads:
"Police Investigate Fireman Involved in Arsonist Attack"

Fair...straight-forward reporting? Wouldn't you, as a casual reader, assume that the fireman is being investigated for possible wrong-doing?

Once again...see if you can grasp it this time....the OFFICER is not being investigated. The INCIDENT is. Big...big difference.

Posted by cromeensb on January 8, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I work for a newspaper and semantics are argued on a daily basis. I don't have a problem with that. As I said, I do think the headline could be better. At this point, the headline is a matter of record.

It is, however, not a record that I think warrants a correction. The incident is being investigated - a part of that investigation includes the officer and his actions. That's the way it should be.

Technically, the officer and his actions are under investigation as is everything else about this incident.

I don't find this issue to be one that needs to be played out with the editorial opinion (mine or that of the Reporter-News) on the front page. There was a headline that was less than stellar but I don't feel it warrants a correction or a front page explanation. I don't think that's hubris on my part or that of the newspaper. You may disagree.

I have been with the Reporter-News for 11 years. That may not be a long enough history to address certain allegations, but I have not been witness to the "consistently...adversarial stance towards our police, deputies and fire personnel..." taken by the newspaper.

Give some solid examples, and please provide context. Other than spot news and most crime issue stories, the biggest and most reported upon stories in recent history have been the shortage of personnel.

Will we ask critical questions? Surely we will. The officer's name, for example, should be a matter of public record. He is a public servant. So, too, should a number of other facts that didn't appear in this story. I'm not alleging that anybody is covering something up. Sometimes folks are guarded with the facts for a variety of reasons - they differ in opinion as to what should or shouldn't be released or do not know the law regarding public records. Sometimes the facts are simply unavailable.

The "victim" comment. I may have missed it in the first posting of the web story. We do try to get news up in a timely fashion. I don't believe it is in any of the current posted stories or in the print edition.

Nobody is/was being admonished. I do appreciate folks reading us and encouraging dialogue. I'm not particularly appreciative of the cheap shots that are fired across everybody's bow (mine, the Reporter-News' and its readers) on these forums. I do think it would be different if we didn't allow anonymity, and that is something that has been discussed at length industry-wide.

Barton Cromeens

Posted by jjb04a on January 8, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm really suprised to see Cromeens finally chiming in on a subject.

Cromeens is a photographer ... he was a photographer for the ARN and he still should be today. He is no way qualified to be an editor, but I guess the ARN isn't really looking for qualified, experienced people.

What I love about the ARN is the fact that most of their articles are 1) not theirs, they are from the AP or another news source 2) the same thing that ran two days ago 3) cite KTXS as the source for a lot of their stories. It's a joke, this paper is a joke. If we had another option in this town, the ARN would go out of business within a couple of years!!

It's terrible, just plain terrible. Starting at the top all the way down ...

Posted by liveNup on January 8, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course you don't think it is appropriate to correct your blunder on the front page because it would reflect upon you. I do not remember the story but I do know that on one article, maybe a letter to the Editor that ARN actually put many of the comments in the daily paper so that those not on ARN website could also see the public view. Why not try that? Put our thoughts in your paper on your article tomorrow since you won't correct what you wrote.

Don't start bashing anonymity now when your paper has encouraged it for so long now and the only reason you are changing your stance is because you are the one no one is agreeing with.

If you do not have the facts to the story why don't you also add that to your article instead of making innuendos that there is a cover up CSI style? There are many reasons why certain facts of a case aren't made public, I do believe fair trial is one of those because as the ARN has proved time and time again facts can become distorted fairly quickly. (Yes that is a cheap shot)

Barton is chiming in now because adding fuel to the fire makes for more readers.

Posted by jjb04a on January 8, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen TellitlikeICit! I wonder why he wouldn't put these comments on the front page ... scared of what would happen more than likely.

Posted by TexasTwister on January 8, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Cromeens -
I appreciate your response, and yes, I do strongly disagree with your interpretation and continued support and implied justification of the wording used in the headline. In fact, I was surprised to see that one of your comments actually unintentionally supports the stance with which many of us are taking issue.

"The incident is being investigated - a part of that investigation includes the officer and his actions. That's the way it should be."

It seems in this statement you agree that "the incident" is the main focus of the investigation. However, what is disconcerting to the majority of the posters here is that you chose to emphasize what you acknowledge to be "a part of that investigation". And by emphasizing this in your headline, you imply something totally different than the focus of the article.

I don't think I saw any posts asking for admonishment of anyone. I do think I speak for many others here in saying that you and your editorial board should refrain from going for the sensational, attention-grabbing headlines instead of the thoughtful, factual ones.

We get our fill of National Enquirer style headlines while waiting in line at the grocery store...please don't inundate us with them in the ARN.

Posted by dancarlson82 on January 8, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I went to school in Abilene, we made up a list of "rejected" town slogans. My favorite was probably "Abilene: God's Dumpster."

Good luck, everyone.

Posted by i_think on January 8, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not remove the comments section?
All that happens on here is people bashing each other.

Posted by apricottx on January 8, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by wild_bill on January 8, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.

"I am strongly biased in favor of our local law enforcement and fire personnel and proud of it, but then I'm neither an employee of the ARN or the APD/AFD and I'm allowed to be as biased as I choose. You do not have that liberty any more than APD/AFD has."

However wild_bill, you are retired APD dispatcher..... So you do have a dog in this fight...

Posted by cougar on January 8, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i dont have a dog in this fight. but we all must thank our police fire and our armed forces as they are the reason we can bash eachother.

Posted by notolerance4904 on January 8, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To the A.P.D. officer involved, "Thank you for putting your life on the line to serve and protect."

Posted by Abilene_Reporter on January 9, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The truth is out there. Abilene is no longer close to being a safe town. Homicides almost doubled during the previous year. Our friendly hometown has been transformed into a haven for violent criminals and scofflaws. It has evolved into the very antithesis of its former self.

Support Your Local Police - and Keep Them Independent!

How I wish Katharyn Duff, Irby Fox, Richard Dickenson and Annalene Kite were still with us, and contributing their perspectives to the newspaper. Their writings, opinions, ramblings and musings gave us something to look forward to reading each day.

I have known Frank Grimes, Ed Wishcamper, Richard Tarpley, Glenn Dromgoole, Stormy Shelton and Frank Puckett. Don Blakely, John Best, David Leeson and David Kent from the photography department have also been acquaintances.

Mr. Cromeens, think of the people who have come before you who made the Abilene Reporter-News a great newspaper during its proudest years, before Scripps gutted it. Are you worthy to even walk the same halls they walked?

"Without or with offense to friends or foes, we sketch your world exactly as it goes." - Byron

Posted by sherrimca on January 9, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abilene_Reporter... you brought back such fond memories by those names. Many years ago (while I was in college in another town) I remember getting into a Letters to the Editor battle with Annalene Kite. Don't remember the subject, but it went back and forth for quite a while (back in the day you were allowed more than one in 30 days).

My husband, an APD officer, on more than one occasion witnessed Dr. Fox in the ER making sure the combatant drunk was stitched up with his own "brand" of anesthesia - NONE, other than the alcohol already consumed.

And Katharyn Duff... no one need to say more than her name.

Those, indeed, were the days...

Posted by motherof2 on January 9, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regardless of the headlines what it really comes down to is there should have been more officers responding to the call. When there is an assault family violence case you know there is going to be atleast 2 people involved. So maybe we should find a way to get more officers out on the street to respond to calls like this one and things like this might not happen.

Posted by squid on January 9, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

motherof2...not to offend, but are you sure you have your facts straight? Please dont depend on the ARN for the facts of this situation. The PD sends two, sometimes more, Officers to calls such as this, but they never arrive at the same time. Should the first Officer on the scene standby and allow an assault to continue while awaiting backup? Alot of times Officers drive up on fights and disturbances in progress, very often Officers go into these situations alone. It is VERY common.

Posted by elizabeth on January 9, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

squid You know the ARN never gets their facts wrong nor do they twist headlines :)~

motherof2... quite frankly if I were getting my ass kicked and a police officer was sitting back waiting for a backup officer to get there before stepping in to help me I would be a little (LOT) pissed! I do believe the story said the back up officers was there within moments which goes to show you that these situations can escalate in a matter of seconds.

Posted by wild_bill on January 9, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

apricottx, you are absolutely right. I AM a retired dispatcher. I freely admited my bias. I can almost guarantee I know the officer invovled too. Being retired the city can't fire me or take away my retirement based on the opinions I express. I don't work for the ARN either, I subscribe to it.

Because I have nothing to fear from the City or the newspaper, and have no control over either, my bias has no weight beyond the worth of what I say. As an employee of the City I was expected to treat, or try to treat, everyone equally, without bias or prejudice. The same SHOULD apply to an employee of the paper such as Mr. Cromeens. The newspaper should be just as concerned with truth and justice as the police department is. I do NOT believe the newspaper is held to the same standards however based on what I have read and observed.

Mr Crommens, I don't keep your paper beyond the day I read it. Nor are the papers archives what I would call 'user friendly' as far as searching them goes, so I would be hard put to "prove" my recollections of the newspapers' bias over the past half century. All I have is my preceptions of what I have read, balanced against what, in some cases, I know was the case. That's suits me just fine. Just as you are satisfied with your treatment of the initial article that started all this with the misleading headline.

Oh yeah, just for the record wild_bill is William J Newman. I am a retired dispatcher for APD/AFD and damn proud of both my service and the people of both departments.

Posted by Abilene_Reporter on January 9, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill, we (the longtime residents of Abilene) are damn proud of your service, too. Countless lives were saved thanks to your rapid handling of tense situations by calmly dispatching the appropriate emergency services to the correct location.

I remember seeing you in action when the police dispatcher was located in the north end of City Hall. You could simultaneously answer the telephone, dispatch police units and silence the old burglar alarm annunciators quicker than many of the newbies can figure out what to touch on their high-tech monitors.

Thank you for your many years of service to the community!