I agree wholeheartedly! Thank you for articulating that so well.

Wouldn’t is the key phrase there, Chance. The sad for is that it’s unlikely that a local reporter would risk their police”access” to tell an a story that paint police in a negative light. A quick glance at the comments section of any article that does will find accusations of “liberal bias” and “betraying our brave men and women in blue” for daring to print that an accused person might be innocent or any other criticism of police procedure.

Hahah, not.

I agree with the comment above. Local news usually sucks with their so called “investigations”. I have commented in the past that I find it amazing that on stories like Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick, Mr. Balko can drive in as a stranger and find facts and viewpoints the local newspapers and stations couldn’t – or wouldn’t. They should feel ashamed that some out of town reporter (and a *gasp* blogger at that) can drive onto their turf and scoop them.

On a different note, my Senator recently introduced a bill that will allow newspapers to become non-profits, with tax exempt status as long as they follow the non profit rules (no endorsment of political candidates for example). Any comments on that? Good, bad, indifferent?

The report also exhibits the theme that Sperry is okay when he’s working for the government and he’s suspect when he acts as a private consultant. I think this example goes even further to cement the idea that there are way too many reporters who think in terms of “the official side of the story” and “the wrong side of the story”. I guess I wasn’t really around then, but it seems like there was a time when a reporter would be proud to question conventional wisdom and expose the official side of the story as a sham. When I watched Stossel’s “Bailouts and Bull…” piece, I saw the sort of reporting we could use a lot more of.

But let one testify for the defense? Scandal!

If I hadn’t been reading this site for so long, I would have probably bought it all, too. I didn’t watch it that night, but couple days later checked it out online, and it was even worse than the teaser. I particularly loved the comment Radley mentions about medical examiners testifying against others being like a cop testifying against another cop. You have to be kidding me!

Why can’t we get investigative reports about the bad guys, instead of hit jobs commissioned by pissed off prosecutors?

In present times, however, even the pretense of an interest in the truth has been dispensed with when it comes to prosecutors. The question prosecutors ask themselves is not whether the guy did it, but only whether he can be convicted.

I think there’s no doubt that medical examiners are on the side of the prosecution and one would be naive to think otherwise. You have government on one side and the defendant and his lawyer on the other. Not only does the government control all the evidence, they also make all the rules. The cards are so stacked in their favor that an acquittal usually means the defendant should probably never have been charged to begin with and a conviction no longer means the defendant did the crime.

In most cases, the defendant has only one guy on his side: his lawyer. Everyone and everything else is arrayed against him.

Aside from the rare exceptions, I think the only thing that keeps medical examiners (as well as cops and prosecutors) in line is the fear of ridicule (and job loss in extreme cases) if they get caught.

Either way, that clause is obviously problematic and ridiculous, and that the reporter just accepts it as though it was a non-compete clause in a marketing exec’s contract is embarrassing for the entire station.

The whole “oh but it was late March” line is so ridiculous too. Like it’s chilly and dry in fucking Biloxi in late March!? Sperry’s conclusions don’t hinge on the heat or humidity anyway, as he says “especially” given those conditions. Could it not have actually been 80 degrees out and rainy those few days that the body was there? If that’s the best they have for the mistakes Sperry made, I’m inclined to think that coroner probably did screw a few thiings up. Something I would like to hear Sperry explain.

It’s just mind-blowing that they would have a piece which questions his character, integrity and professional competence and not even mention whether he was available for comment.