Sunday, September 29, 2002

NEXT THEY’LL BE ISSUING ORANGE JUMPSUITS

James DiBenedetto blogs the debate over random drug testing in public schools. I don’t have much to add, other than I think its all part of the same trend toward extreme and unreasonable restrictions on civil liberties by the education establishment that was occurring even before 9/11. (Conservative Justices Thomas, who authored the opinion permitting random testing, and Scalia, who signed on, should both know better.) Public schools may stand in loco parentis, but they are still government actors and students don’t leave their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door – especially when the coercive power of the state makes attendance mandatory.



THE DOG THAT DIDN’T BARK
An important news item was broken by The Washington Post on a Friday evening and received little or no play in the nation’s newspapers. Here’s a brief version:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Election Commission has imposed a record $719,000 in fines against Democrats involved in the party's 1996 fund-raising scandals, according to a published report.

FEC documents described how Democratic fund-raisers demanded illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals in China and other countries in exchange for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

Ombudsmen Sanders LaMont, of the Sacramento Bee, and Lou Galfand, of The Minneapolis Star Tribune, respond to criticism that the story received little or no play in the newspapers.

LaMont explains why the piece didn’t run in the Bee:

[National Editor Marl] Melnicoe explained that there was "a ton of state/Capitol news" that night, it was a big news day generally and the story moved late for the next day's editions.

The Post wire service did not send out an advisory that the story was coming, standard procedure if they consider stories significant. It also was not on the Post's list of articles it was planning to publish on its front page, a list available to Bee editors working that night.

Melnicoe also states that the piece first moved on the wires at 7:30 P.M. Friday night and that it was “a well-done, comprehensive story that we should have run.”

The Star Tribune did run the piece, but it would have been an unusual reader who would have spotted it, buried as it was in Saturday’s paper on page A15. Gelfand responds to readers who complained that the newspaper buried the story by noting that several other newspapers, including The Washington Post, also chose not to give the story prominent coverage. He notes that The Washington Times chose not to publish the piece at all.

So, why did a story about record fines being levied in relation to a conspiracy that raised millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions, from foreign interests, on behalf of a sitting President, receive such little notice? I think the answer is several-fold. The first is that the story was released on a Friday evening, the traditional time to release embarrassing news so that it will receive light coverage. Second, The Post decided not to give the usual warning that the piece was coming, so that many editors simply missed the piece, or the importance of the piece. Finally the piece is, in a sense, old news, as the illegal acts relate to President Clinton’s Presidential campaign of 1996.

Still it is curious that the matter was released on a Friday evening without the usual warnings. It’s almost as if The Post didn’t want other publications to pick up the story.

James DeBenedetto blogged some of this a week ago.



TAX-DEDUCTIBLE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE RICH
Mickey Kaus picks up on the ramifications of a piece by Rishawn Biddle. It seems someone’s already figured out a giant-sized loophole in the McCain-Feingold anti-First Amendment campaign finance reform law. Perhaps it should now be called the McCain-Feingold tax-deduction-for-wealthy-contributors Act.



THE TWIN TOWERS BEFORE 9/11
Unfortunately when I read Karen Hunter’s ombudsman column, in The Hartford Courant, about a full-spread photograph they published of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, I was suffering from 9/11 overload and didn’t take the trouble to look at the page.

This week, The Richmond Times-Dispatch's ombudsman, Jerry Finch, refers to that photograph as “spectacular.” He’s absolutely right. For the record, the photograph was taken from aboard a commercial airliner by Katherine Weisberger, a photography major at NYU.

Here are some links:
. Weisberger's photograph as a jpeg.
. A .pdf file of Weisberger's photograph as it appeared in The Hartford Courant. My favorite version -- use ([ctrl] [shift] +), once the image loads in Acrobat Reader, for the best view.
. A gallery of photographs related to 9/11, including this one, that sells 11x17 prints.

Friday, September 27, 2002

WHERE’S THE BLACK CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR?

Media Minded reports that Maryland gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Kennedy Townsend denounced her opponent, Robert L. Ehrlich, at an NAACP sponsored debate:

"He opposes affirmative action based on race," she said. "Well, let me tell you, slavery was based on race. Lynching was based on race. Discrimination is based on race. Jim Crow was based on race. And affirmative action should be based on race."

Well at least it’s out in the open. Ms. Townsend defines people by the color their skin. Since affirmative action is supposed to be about correcting historical patterns of discrimination, shouldn’t Ms. Townsend step aside and allow a qualified black candidate to run for governor? After all, when’s the last time a black served as governor of Maryland?

Oh wait, we're talking about a Kennedy. Never mind.



THE WASHINGTON POST’S PRINCIPLES
According to The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Michael Getler, four retired high-ranking military officers testified on Monday before a Senate committee about war with Iraq. Three retired four-stars generals, Army Generals John M. Shalikashvili and Wesley K. Clark, and Marine Corps General Joseph P. Hoar, urged caution. Hoar warned of high casualties “on both sides” and joined with Clark in speculating that war would “supercharge” terrorist recruiting efforts. Retired three-star Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney urged quick and decisive action against Iraq.

The Post chose not to report any of this on Tuesday. They did, however, report about:

a man named Brian Griffin, who is secretary of the environment in Oklahoma. It seems that Griffin had been randomly selected for search at the Oklahoma City airport as he was checking in for a flight to Washington. Griffin, according to Reliable Source sources, made a vigorous protest, but before he could produce proof of his position, inspectors found "a Ziploc bag filled with condoms." Griffin is divorced and single.

Later in the week, The Post informed readers that a corporate executive had recently visited a strip club.

Getler doesn’t mention it, but The Post is famous for its seven principles, which were promulgated by Eugene Meyer in 1935. The principles are published on The Post’s website and, so far as I know, have never been disaffirmed. They are:

. The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.

.The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.

. As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.

. What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.

. The newspaper's duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.

. In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.

. The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

By failing to report the testimony of former high-ranking officers regarding war with Iraq, The Post breached its second principle. By publishing news of an unmarried adult possessing condoms and of another private citizen's visit to a strip club, The Post would also seem to have breached the third principle.

Perhaps the editors of The Post should review their principles.

Thursday, September 26, 2002

WHAT DID EUROPE DO TO MAKE MUSLIMS HATE US?

A common theme of anti-Americanism in Europe is that the United States must learn what has made Muslim extremists hate us -- implying that we are at least partially responsible for the terrorist acts of 9/11. Perhaps a better question is what has Europe done to cause young Arab men to hate the west?

The Chicago Tribune’s ombudsman, Don Wycliff, attended a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations lecture given by "Thomas Friedman, The New York Times' three-time Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and undisputed champion foreign policy analyst among American journalists." Wycliff reports that:

[Friedman] divides the hijackers into two groups, which he calls the Saudis and the Europeans.

The Saudis were the "muscle guys," the ones at the back of the hijacked planes whose role was to intimidate the passengers. These were recruited from among the legions of young, unemployed men in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, men Friedman calls "the sittin' around guys."

The Europeans were not ethnically European--all the hijackers were ethnically Arab--but they had lived in Europe and, owing to the social rejection they experienced there, had become radicalized. "All converted to radical Islam as a result of contact with the West," as a result of being "stiff-armed," Friedman said.

Thus ripened to radicalism, these men--and many others like them--were ready for plucking by bin Laden...

In other words, the radicalization came about through exposure to, and rejection by, European culture. Al Qaeda simply focused that radicalism against America, which is the dominant military and cultural power of the west.

Wednesday, September 25, 2002

BORROWED THOUGHTS?

Professor Bunyip has noticed an interesting similarity between the postings of one Clinton Fernandes, on an Internet bulletin board, and the journalism of one Kenneth Davidson, who writes for The Age. For example:

Kenneth Davidson writing inthe Age on September 23, 2002:

"Iraq was a client state or, in polite terms, an ally. Client states are defined, according to US academic Noam Chomsky, by their obedience, not their values. Saddam was given diplomatic cover for as long as he was obedient to US interests. Now, he is damned as a monster.

And now, a July 24 post by a certain Clinton Fernandes on the Postive Futures bulletin board:

"As Noam Chomsky has remarked, client states are called "allies" in polite terms, and they are defined by their obedience, not their values. Saddam Hussein was an "ally" until he became disobedient. While he was obedient, he was armed and given diplomatic cover. When he became disobedient..."

VERY DIFFERENT SPIN ON THE SAME STORY

The Boston Globe’s ombudsman, Christine Chinlund, and columnist Ann Coulter each discuss the situation which began when a woman overheard a conversation between three Arab medical students. I make no representations as to the accuracy of either version, but they are interesting to compare and contrast. Chinlund’s piece was published on Monday, and Coulter’s appeared today.

Chinlund:

Eunice Stone listened as the men, one wearing a Muslim cap, chatted at a nearby table. She thought she heard them joking about 9/11 and plotting to bring down Miami, so she called the State Patrol. The students, detained a day later, explained they were talking about bringing a car down to Miami from their home in Chicago, to drive while they completed their clinical rotation at a South Miami hospital.

They denied plotting violence or joking about 9/11. They also denied authorities' later suggestion that they spiced up their conversation for Stone's benefit once they realized she was eavesdropping - making them sick tricksters, if not terrorists.

Coulter:

By my count, the Muslims have given at least five versions of what happened. Eunice Stone has given one consistent story. She has been interrogated by law enforcement officials and is corroborated by another witness.

…the [students] first told law enforcement officers they did it on purpose. Stone, they said, was watching them too closely and this [annoyed them]. So they decided to scare her. [Chinlund, by the way, says this was unsourced.]

…Next, the Muslims told reporters that Stone had "put a little salt and pepper into her story." A stunned CNN correspondent blurted out: "Salt and pepper?" He reminded them what Stone had heard them say. "Well, yes, whatever," came the reply.

Third, they tried out the hysterical-woman defense… One of the Muslims tauntingly demanded to know "how many other people witnessed this event that supposedly took place, first of all?" Well, at least one other person. Stone's son was there and he heard the conversation exactly the same way. He just thought the men were playing his mother and him for suckers…

Fourth, the Muslims … advised Americans to "read about other people and read about what they believe before we jump to conclusions."

…it now appears that their final answer is: They were talking about a car. They didn't say anything about 9/11 or 9/13, but the "bring it down" bon mot referred to bringing a car down to Florida. This occurred to them only after meeting with their lawyers….

Chinlund:

It is, of course, possible the medical students did change their story. It's hard to know exactly what was, and wasn't, said at the Shoney's breakfast table. Georgia authorities are still investigating the possibility of a hoax.

To the Globe's credit, its account did include comments from the students' relatives expressing doubt about Stone's allegations. And the paper did set the record straight a day later by publishing the denials - on page A18. But those efforts don't offset the omission of the students' denial in the initial front page story. Their words were essential for a fair portrayal of confusing events.

Coulter:

According to accounts in The New York Times, the men were uncooperative, refused to answer basic questions, gave false information and told contradictory stories. A bomb-sniffing dog reacted to the presence of explosives in both vehicles. After a careful search, however, no explosives were found and the men were released.

…the men and their families accused Americans, especially Southerners, of being ignorant racists. "Just because of the way we look or the way we choose to live our lives, we're persecuted," said the sister of one. Demonstrating her own open-mindedness, she explained the entire incident by saying, "Unfortunately, they stopped in a restaurant in Georgia."

Tuesday, September 24, 2002

ON A BIZARRE RELIGIOUS RITUAL AND OUTING AN FBI INFORMER

Gina Lubrano, ombudsman for The San Diego Union-Tribune, covers a couple if interesting issues today. The first entails prominent coverage of a (to me) bizarre ritual, practiced by some Orthodox Jews on Yom Kippur, which involves swinging a live chicken over someone’s head. This is supposed to transfer the person’s sins to the chicken. The bird is then sacrificed and given to the poor. The newspaper ran a photo of the ritual, which prompted a letter from the regional director of the anti-Defamation League who described it as “grotesque,” and wrote that:

It was as if they decided to show a picture that ostensibly represented how the Jewish community prayed on the high holy days by using the most extreme image representing a very small part of Judaism.

Lubrano also quotes from an Orthodox rabbi who, naturally, disagrees.

I suspect that most religions have practices and rituals that would seem bizarre if published with little context in a newspaper. The early Romans misunderstood the Christian sacraments and at least some considered Christians to be secret cannibals. Many Mormons wear “sacred garments” under their clothes. There’s nothing wrong with publishing this information, but it is important that the practices and rituals be explained and placed in proper context for readers. From the description Lubrano gives, that may not have been the case here.

More disturbing is The Union-Tribune’s complicity in revealing that Abdussattar Shaikh, a leader of the local Muslim community, was an FBI informant – an allegation he denies. Shaikh is reported to have unwittingly rented rooms to two of the 9/11 hijackers. The Union-Tribune was not the first source to reveal his status as an informant, that dubious honor going to Newsweek and “television reporters.” Nevertheless the newspaper confirmed that Shaikh was an informant, prompting complaints. One reader cancelled his subscription because the newspaper had placed Shaikh in “jeopardy.”

Lubrano apparently justifies this revelation on the grounds that Shaikh had denied he was an informer and in the context of supposed intelligence failures prior to 9/11. She writes that:

Because of what may be happenstance, Shaikh is in a difficult position. Yet the Union-Tribune's credibility would be at stake if it failed to report the news.

The likely consequences of their revelation are that Shaikh’s life is in danger, his future usefulness as an informer is gone and his example will dissuade other potential informers. If The Union-Tribune believes that Shaikh was duplicitous in his role as an FBI informer then they should come out and say so and put the evidence before their readers. Otherwise the news value of the information escapes me.

Lubrano doesn’t state why The Union-Tribune’s credibility would be at stake if it didn’t confirm to the world that Abdussattar Shaikh was an FBI informer. There is a war going on, and The Union-Tribune is doing their public a disservice by publishing this sort of unnecessary information. Unfortunately they are not alone.

JUST CALL IT “THE VULGARIAN”

The results of a survey carried out last week show that the [The Guardian’s] title as the world leader is quite secure. It revealed [so far this year] almost 700 stories in which the word fuck had been used, and 35 which had used the word cunt. The Independent still comes a very poor second (184 stories with fuck in them; four with cunt). The others are nowhere.

By comparison, the word wanker appeared in 82 stories, and crap in 392.

This represents an increase from 1998, when:

in the year up to [the end of October] there had been more than 400 pieces in the Guardian in which the word fuck or fucking appeared. In the same period there were 28 references to cunt...

The Guardian is so fond of the infamous c-word that one of their correspondents asked:

I don't want to make too much of this, but do we perhaps have a culture which finds it easier to print 'cunt' than 'vagina'?

Perhaps The Guardian should come packaged in a brown paper wrapper.


WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Lou Gelfand, The Minneapolis Star Tribune’s ombudsman, relates a story that I find troubling.

A twenty year-old adult, Michael Pigg, assaulted a 4 year-old boy of mixed race while reportedly directing “racially derogatory names at the child.” Rather than imposing “a traditional jail sentence,” Judge Robert King decided to impose a “ten-month counseling relationship” on Pigg with a retired surgeon, David Harris, who is a member of something called the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission.” For an unstated reason, Gelfand supplies the information that Harris is the grandson of a Jewish immigrant.

Gelfand reports that Pigg and Harris reached an agreement that, while Pigg could not talk to the press about the counseling, Harris was free to do so provided he did “not divulge certain details of Pigg’s life.” Any reason it was felt to be beneficial that Harris would grant “media interviews” about his counseling relationship with Pigg is left unstated.

Anyway, Harris was interviewed by the Star Tribune with the understanding that Pigg’s picture would not accompany the piece, because “the picture would destroy his relationship” with Pigg. It was also planned that the story would appear in the newspaper’s Variety section. Due however to some internal miscommunications, the Star Tribune gave the story front-page placement and used Pigg’s jail booking picture.

According to Gelfand, the story generated positive responses from readers -- at least for Mr. Harris:

"Knowing that even Mr. Harris is still learning and growing and continuing to find tolerance provides me with inspiration."

"You have written graphically about the marvelous involvement by a true man of peace."

"The judge's sentence seems to have been heaven sent for Mr. Pigg."

"While the world may be changed, either for better or for worse, one person a time, articles such as this might speed progress for the better."

Gelfand does leave one important clue that I find troubling. Pigg is quoted as telling Harris that, "I told you that you can't trust the newspaper."

It is appropriate, and even desirable, for a judge to find an alternative to sending a person to jail, when the alternative promises to have some rehabilitative value and the person does not pose a considerable threat to the public safety. A mentoring or counseling relationship may be an appropriate alternative.

In this case, however, Pigg himself was not permitted to talk to the press, and I see no legitimate purpose for Harris to be granting “media interviews” about his relationship with Pigg. Given Pigg’s reaction, “I told you that you can't trust the newspaper,” it’s clear that he was not in favor of Harris talking to the press.

The fact that a reluctant Pigg was being used to generate positive publicity for Harris and for the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission” reflects badly on the judge’s decision. He should insure that it doesn’t happen again.

LEAVE EUNICE STONE ALONE

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s ombudsman, Mike King, writes that it’s time to leave Eunice Stone alone.

Stone ... reported to police last week that she overheard three men -- whom she described as Middle Eastern -- at a restaurant in Calhoun discussing what seemed like a plan to plant a bomb in Miami on Sept. 13. Her tip sent federal and state homeland security officials scurrying through two states before shutting down a busy stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley when they pulled over a car matching the one Stone had described.

It turned out there was no bomb or threat. It was either a misunderstanding on her part or a massively dumb hoax played by three medical students on their way to Florida.

King goes on to report that:

a few TV commentators ... assume she "profiled" the Arab-American men she overheard. Media crews hovered around her for days, so much so that by Monday night she sought emergency treatment for what she thought might be a heart attack.

She probably never expected her actions to generate such scrutiny and suspicion. Her telephone answering machine in Cartersville filled up five times over, her lawyer said. She heard and read reports of accusations that she made up the story. At one point she felt it necessary to hold a news conference to declare she was not a racist.

Then her lawyer said something that every editor should consider when covering a story such as this: "She doesn't understand why this story isn't over."

King says bluntly:

unless someone has some evidence that she lied to police, the story is over.

Note to assignment editors: Leave her alone.

I agree. The treatment Stone has been receiving at the hands of the media will work to dissuade others from reporting suspicious behavior. And when it comes to combating international terrorism that could have disastrous consequences.

Monday, September 23, 2002

THE LAST OF THE DOUGHBOYS

But No Man's Land is a goblin sight
When patrols crawl over at dead o' night;
Boche or British, Belgian or French,
You dice with death when you cross the trench

-James H. Adkin - No Man's Land

Jerry Finch, ombudsman for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, makes note of a sad passing. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs there are now no surviving veterans of the European Civil War (WWI) living in Virginia, and there are only an estimated 250 alive nationwide. There have been no public ceremonies, no public observances and no parades. The doughboys are mostly gone and largely forgotten.

Just as the American Civil War shaped the United States as we know it today, so too did the European Civil War shape the world order that was to follow. The Second World War was largely an outgrowth of problems created at the end of the First. By comparison, Reconstruction in the South was relatively benign and peaceful.

The last remaining veterans of the American Civil War were greatly honored and celebrated, both North and South. It’s a shame we haven’t done the same for the boys who went to Europe to at least try to make the world, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, “safe for Democracy.”
posted at 2:20 PM


THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT, 1996
James DiBenedetto points to a much-overlooked piece in The Washington Post about the Federal Election Commission finally getting “around to meting out punishment for the widespread and brazen campaign finance violations of the Democratic Party and specifically the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996.” One of the more interesting aspects is that, according to The Post:

The FEC documents describe Democratic fundraisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

Some of the "contributions" were funneled through dummy corporations with no assets, which served merely as conduits for money from China and other countries. It gets worse.

I credit the fact that so little has been done until now to stonewalling by Janet Reno’s Department of Justice. To my mind this stinks worse than either Teapot Dome or The Whiskey Ring. The Clinton Administration put itself for sale to foreign interests, and the stench goes all the way to the top.



TRUE LIABILITY REFORM, NOT ARBITRARY “CAPS”
Peter Sean Bradley makes good points about medical malpractice awards, although his point about insurance rates being driven by changes in interest rates applies to virtually all types of insurance, not just professional malpractice.

He points out that perhaps no group is as favored by juries as are medical doctors and that liability caps may harm the victims of malpractice by preventing them from receiving appropriate compensation. My experience in Virginia is that the cap does do harm and that victims of serious malpractice may not receive enough to cover future medical expenses that result from the malpractice, let alone any compensation for life-long pain and suffering.

Something worth considering is that the really outrageous civil-liability jury verdicts are in product liability cases, not professional malpractice. And tort reform for product liability needs to be handled at the Federal level. This is because of problems with horizontal federalism whereby standards set by one state can become the de facto standard for all 50 due to interstate commerce and forum shopping. Plaintiff’s attorneys will generally file suit in the state most favorable to their cause, with the result being that citizens of the other 49 states have little say in the standards being applied to products being sold across the country.

The solution is not some arbitrary “cap” on awards. An arbitrary cap may result in gross under-compensation in some situations, and have no effect whatsoever on trivial cases that should never have been brought. True reform requires that liability standards for products in interstate commerce be set at the national level.

Sunday, September 22, 2002

JUST CALL IT “THE VULGARIAN”

The results of a survey carried out last week show that the [The Guardian’s] title as the world leader is quite secure. It revealed [so far this year] almost 700 stories in which the word fuck had been used, and 35 which had used the word cunt. The Independent still comes a very poor second (184 stories with fuck in them; four with cunt). The others are nowhere.

By comparison, the word wanker appeared in 82 stories, and crap in 392.

This represents an increase from 1998, when:

in the year up to [the end of October] there had been more than 400 pieces in the Guardian in which the word fuck or fucking appeared. In the same period there were 28 references to cunt...

The Guardian is so fond of the infamous c-word that one of their correspondents asked:

I don't want to make too much of this, but do we perhaps have a culture which finds it easier to print 'cunt' than 'vagina'?

Perhaps The Guardian should come packaged in a brown paper wrapper.



WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Lou Gelfand, The Minneapolis Star Tribune’s ombudsman, relates a story that I find troubling.

A twenty year-old adult, Michael Pigg, assaulted a 4 year-old boy of mixed race while reportedly directing “racially derogatory names at the child.” Rather than imposing “a traditional jail sentence,” Judge Robert King decided to impose a “ten-month counseling relationship” on Pigg with a retired surgeon, David Harris, who is a member of something called the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission.” For an unstated reason, Gelfand supplies the information that Harris is the grandson of a Jewish immigrant.

Gelfand reports that Pigg and Harris reached an agreement that, while Pigg could not talk to the press about the counseling, Harris was free to do so provided he did “not divulge certain details of Pigg’s life.” Any reason it was felt to be beneficial that Harris would grant “media interviews” about his counseling relationship with Pigg is left unstated.

Anyway, Harris was interviewed by the Star Tribune with the understanding that Pigg’s picture would not accompany the piece, because “the picture would destroy his relationship” with Pigg. It was also planned that the story would appear in the newspaper’s Variety section. Due however to some internal miscommunications, the Star Tribune gave the story front-page placement and used Pigg’s jail booking picture.

According to Gelfand, the story generated positive responses from readers -- at least for Mr. Harris:

"Knowing that even Mr. Harris is still learning and growing and continuing to find tolerance provides me with inspiration."

"You have written graphically about the marvelous involvement by a true man of peace."

"The judge's sentence seems to have been heaven sent for Mr. Pigg."

"While the world may be changed, either for better or for worse, one person a time, articles such as this might speed progress for the better."

Gelfand does leave one important clue that I find troubling. Pigg is quoted as telling Harris that, "I told you that you can't trust the newspaper."

It is appropriate, and even desirable, for a judge to find an alternative to sending a person to jail, when the alternative promises to have some rehabilitative value and the person does not pose a considerable threat to the public safety. A mentoring or counseling relationship may be an appropriate alternative.

In this case, however, Pigg himself was not permitted to talk to the press, and I see no legitimate purpose for Harris to be granting “media interviews” about his relationship with Pigg. Given Pigg’s reaction, “I told you that you can't trust the newspaper,” it’s clear that he was not in favor of Harris talking to the press.

The fact that a reluctant Pigg was being used to generate positive publicity for Harris and for the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission” reflects badly on the judge’s decision. He should insure that it doesn’t happen again.

LEAVE EUNICE STONE ALONE

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s ombudsman, Mike King, writes that it’s time to leave Eunice Stone alone.

Stone ... reported to police last week that she overheard three men -- whom she described as Middle Eastern -- at a restaurant in Calhoun discussing what seemed like a plan to plant a bomb in Miami on Sept. 13. Her tip sent federal and state homeland security officials scurrying through two states before shutting down a busy stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley when they pulled over a car matching the one Stone had described.

It turned out there was no bomb or threat. It was either a misunderstanding on her part or a massively dumb hoax played by three medical students on their way to Florida.

King goes on to report that:

a few TV commentators ... assume she "profiled" the Arab-American men she overheard. Media crews hovered around her for days, so much so that by Monday night she sought emergency treatment for what she thought might be a heart attack.

She probably never expected her actions to generate such scrutiny and suspicion. Her telephone answering machine in Cartersville filled up five times over, her lawyer said. She heard and read reports of accusations that she made up the story. At one point she felt it necessary to hold a news conference to declare she was not a racist.

Then her lawyer said something that every editor should consider when covering a story such as this: "She doesn't understand why this story isn't over."

King says bluntly:

unless someone has some evidence that she lied to police, the story is over.

Note to assignment editors: Leave her alone.

I agree. The treatment Stone has been receiving at the hands of the media will work to dissuade others from reporting suspicious behavior. And when it comes to combating international terrorism that could have disastrous consequences.