Slanted coverage of ongoing probation debate?
The Chronicle, which has argued editorially in favor of softer probation requirements supported by state Sen. John Whitmire (D), today runs a "news" story by Andrew Tilghman that clearly seems slanted in favor of that position.
Here is the crux of the article:
Roughly one of every seven Harris County probationers was put behind bars last year for failing to comply with court-ordered conditions, the highest revocation rate of any major Texas metropolitan area, state data show.
Once viewed as a respectable sign of a tough criminal justice system, a high revocation rate is increasingly considered a liability that fills costly jail space with low-level offenders and drains tax dollars.
Increasingly considered by whom? No longer viewed as respectable by whom?
That language clearly signals to the reader that one view is superior to the other, but not enough information is provided in the story to back up the assertions. Is that news reporting, editorializing, sloppy editing, or some combination?
Interestingly, Sen. Whitmire makes an appearance:
"The (county) bench is made up of very conservative people, most of them former prosecutors," said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston. "Elements of the judiciary are applying their own theories and philosophies, contrary to what a lot of experts and advisers would suggest works."
Sen. Whitmire co-authored the legislation that Gov. Perry (R) vetoed. That veto gets a mention near the end of the story:
Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a crime bill June 17 that was designed to reform the probation system by limiting community-service requirements and forcing judges to review probation cases and consider ending supervision early for good behavior.
The reform legislation sounds great, right? It's certainly shaded that way by Tilghman, who neglected to report the governor's stated reasons for the veto:
House Bill No. 2193 would reduce the maximum period of probation for certain third degree felonies from 10 to 5 years. This bill would shorten the probation for those who are convicted of assault on a peace officer and taking a weapon away from a peace officer. I will not sign legislation that reduces penalties for offenses against law enforcement officers.
This bill would also reduce the maximum period of probation for offenses such as kidnapping, injury to a child, repeated spousal abuse, intoxication assualt and habitual felony drunk driving. These are serious crimes and I do not believe Texas should reduce probationary sentences for offenders who endanger the lives of others in such crimes.
House Bill No. 2193 would also add court fines to expand drug courts in Texas; however, there was no appropriation of these new revenues and the intended purpose would not be funded.
Attempt to improve this legislation that would have provided greater public safety were rebuffed, ensuring a flawed piece of legislation that would endanger public safety made it to my desk instead of one that could have made needed improvements to our probation system.
This legislation has raised concerns from many on the front lines of prosecuting these crimes, and I can only conclude their opposition stems from good cause.
That certainly raises some issues that were ignored by Tilghman's reporting.
Regardless of whether the story's shading and omissions were intentional, they give ammunition to people who question whether "the division between the opinion pages and the news pages" is as clear as it should be.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 06/26/05 10:09 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.