More Dinkel to come, most likely
Jeni Lee Dinkel goes to jail for 60 days, and the Enquirer gives it the biggest headline of the morning. Can we stop reading about it now? Probably not. The Enquirer has run nearly two dozen stories on this tawdry case, including eight on the front page, five on the front page of the Local section and three editorials. The editorial board doesn't even get this excised about Iraq.
Online advertising will overtake newspaper ad revenues by 2011. Newspapers have missed the boat. The cuts will continue, and the Enquirer will continue to over-cover stories like the Dinkel case in a desperate attempt to drive web traffic, while real news goes uncovered.
Online advertising will overtake newspaper ad revenues by 2011. Newspapers have missed the boat. The cuts will continue, and the Enquirer will continue to over-cover stories like the Dinkel case in a desperate attempt to drive web traffic, while real news goes uncovered.
posted by Newsache at 9:56 AM
8 Comments:
Enquirer editorial:
"...her attempt to use (her son's) illness to lighten her sentence is disgusting."
Did anybody else's Irony Meter just go SPROINGG!!!
Somebody got some 'splainin' to do. They run that horror show Daugherty column on A1 and a few days later come all high 'n' mighty like this?
Disgusting? Indeed.
Respectable media sources generally withhold the name of the victim and the victim's family in cases such as the Jeni Lee Dinkel rape trial due to the nature of the offense and journalistic standards.
At least one media source told in the story of the sentencing of Jeni Lee Dinkel that the judge asked the victim's mother if the sentence was "OK" during the sentencing.
The Enquirer ran video of the sentencing and in it, the judge audibly says, "Do you have a problem with that MS M****?" NOTE: I choose not to relay the actual name.
As the methods of media delivery change, standards such as protecting the victim and the victim's privacy still hold. There are good reason for those practices and standards.
Anyone know who MS. M**** is?
I hope I am wrong, but if MS M**** is the mother, NOT editing that part of the video was irresponsible and inexcusable.
And, on top of that, the Enquirer goes on to make it worse with the dirty little details of the sordid events with: "Police report provides details."
This is after the whine-and-cry-for-Jeni stories, the images of an anonymous, handwritten letter to the judge that was not even referenced ANYWHERE within the Enquirer stories, a message board for "CincyMOMS" (like this isn't a father/man issue too), and, only after the sentencing, an editorial condemning the defendant.
Now, "more details" on a series of events that would not have been reported in this length had the tables been turned. Get me a break! No one needed to know the steps of seduction.
I am not complaining about the judge, the ruling, what the victim did or did not do or what the parents of the victim do or do not feel. I am complaining about the bullshit and generated sensationalism that is solely and totally at the doorstep with the Enquirer. Can the Enquirer please stop hurting the victim in the name of web-hits? TV isn't doing this. The Post isn't doing this. Independent blogs aren't doing this. TV, the "little" paper and independents are being decent and considerate in comparison.
Had the table been turned with a 51 year old man and 15 year old girl, we have heard two sentences by the media, maybe.
The Enquirer IS the pimp in this entire saga. How much longer is this going to last?
Gregory Bartlett had to have difficulty in decisions with the Dinkel case. Sure, some of those decisions made things temporarily harder on a lot people. He had to have pressure on a lot of fronts. He received criticism from the inky-stinky Enquirer for his decision for not accepting the initial plea deal.
"She placed herself in a position of not being there for her son when he needs her the most," Bartlett said. "It's a problem of her own making."
Sixty days is not what Jeni and her family wants. Sure, Jeni would prefer few or no consequences. Who wouldn't? Yes, many think the sentence it far too lenient.
Personally, I thank Judge Gregory Bartlett. It had to be difficult. Yes, 60 days is lenient. At the same time, Bartlett was more than fair.
Let's review:
"She placed herself in a position of not being there for her son when he needs her the most," Bartlett said. "It's a problem of her own making."
Thank you Mr. Bartlett. You have renewed my trust that government and the court system can be both fair and sympathetic.
Jim Hannah deserves a pat on the back for accurate reporting. It can happen, even at the inky-stinky.
No answer IS an answer. Thanks for your integrity, Enquirer. Obviously the inky-stinky is accurate.
As someone close to the case, I can add to the irate feelings. The Daugherty article was published and written by Daugherty, not Hannah and Schroeder who were on the case all along. In addition, the salient details released and published in the police report and republished by the Enq. revictimize the victim by putting out there all the gruesome details of what happened-- just more fodder for his peers to poke fun at. As a child psychiatrist I know said, "it's actions like these that lead children over the edge." Poor professionalism, if you ask me.
I hope that there is recourse for the victim and his family. Dinkel should be held financially accountable for the damage done. The Enquirer should also be held accountable for broadcasting the judge's comments that included the family name. It is things like that that push for closing courtroom doors and the flow of information. The name has since been dubbed out, but it was only after the fact.
And the insensitive "details" article remains (although somewhat edited) in the over the top "Dinkel Special Section". There were ways to write that without chronicling the individual encounters.
And why is it that the tried and true newspaper standard don't hold anymore? Sad that they choose to make their money by extending the suffering and misery.
How much intelligence does it take to figure out there are 2 sides to every story......I want to hear Dinkels. When the civil case hits my guess the victims family and friends won't be TOO THRILLED! I can smell a blood bath in KY. If the judge thought she was guilty he would have at least given her the minimum sentence. Obviously, not enough evidence.
Obviously their son was a priority when she was charged, WHY WOULD SOMEONE TAKE A PLEA AGREEMENT AND A GAG ORDER SO QUICKLY. They obviously have the money to handle a trial and then some. The victim and his family were all for it, get it over quickly.what made them turn her into a monster.....money!
Post a Comment
<< Home