As I said in a reply to a previous post I have been out of town a lot over the last few weeks and haven't had a chance to really turn the TV on and watch all the stations. Its sad but, the internet makes it increasingly easy to keep up with the latest news from the stations. But it often doesn't provide the subject matter that watching it on TV, with the other stations going at the same time, does. My first post will actually usher in praise, well with 3 of the 4 subjects.
KWCH had 2 interesting stories in its newscasts tonight. The story of a school bus stop in Haysville near the house of a sex offender and a story about a kid at a Catholic school who was asked to leave because his family would not sign a form saying their child would speak English at all times of the day in school including recess were new and interesting. It doesn't matter what you think of the later issue, it does pose some interesting issues to be resolved possibly by the Supreme Court in the future.
Meanwhile KSN was on the right side of things with a well done piece by Jason Kravarik on the lack of Pediatric psychiatrists. The story says Kansas has the lowest numbers of such doctors in the country. After watching the story, it shows KSN's Achilles: Promotions. This was a story which should have been promoted a couple of days earlier rather than their constant banter of weather, weather, weather and more weather. Finally a negative comment: Tonight on KSN you would have thought the Shockers were in the Sweet 16 again with a news story about the Shocker madness or whatever the preseason scrimmage was called. This wasn't necessarily a fault of reporter Paul Petite, but his story on the event probably came off bad because he had to be careful not to touch on subject matter the sports guys were (and rightly so) going to handle in their sportscasts which was placed I think only a commercial break apart. Note to KSN management, let the sports guys do their jobs, unless a Shocker team gets to an NCAA tournament. And even at that point tread carefully. If another station did something similar let me know and I'll rib them too. Where is KAKE in all of this? Today is characteristic of the other 2 stations the last few weeks. KAKE basically did the day's news, stuff you saw on the other stations, and didn't really wow nor offend in anyway. Some may take this as bashing. Actually if you don't offend an audience on a given day, then it should be considered a win.
Also, if you have a good poll question to ask the readers, let me know. -Hal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What do you think about KWCH's decision to show the sex offender's name, picture, and home.
I know legally it's fine, and the information's out there if someone wants it, but it seemed a little unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the story.
That is a rather interesting question, I didn't think about when watching the story. The offender was convicted of a sex crime in 1998 and his name is readily available if you search on the state's sex offender site. From that perspective one can argue for broadcasting the name. I really don't know how I feel on this one, because when I think more of it, you could say it was a 1998 conviction and now he is just trying to move on with his life and if he hasn't reoffended since then he is doing just that. On the otherhand one could counter that argument by saying the victim still maybe be facing mental torment to this day and will for the future and has no choice in the matter. It is an interesting issue. I am interested what others feel on this one. The actual story video is not posted online, but the text of the story is. The address to the story is down below. -Hal
http://kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=7222967&nav=menu486_2
When someone is charged and convicted of a crime it is public record. This is not an accusation that hasn't worked its way through the courts.
No one is suggesting KWCH didn't legally have the right to do what it did.
The question is what is gained from putting this guy's name, home, and picture out there for this particular story?
I personally don't see why it was necessary. The guy's identity was irrelevant to the issue.
I think at some point in time you have to let sleeping dogs lie. Has he re-offended since 1998? Did he choose to live in front of a school bus stop that wasn't there until this year? I feel we should have mentioned where he lived, and his crime, but not his name or shown his picture. Just a personal opinion, but I think this guy's had 9 years to make a life for himself. It's unfair a news station can ruin that for him in 1:30.
He assaulted a child. You have no right to privacy or anonimity after that.
Post a Comment