Posted on 10/12/2006 11:40:56 AM PDT by shrinkermd
I find Sunday's Star Tribune story by Paul McEnroe and Rochelle Olson on the expunged 1995 arrest of Republican Fifth District congressional candidate Alan Fine to be reprehensible. We posted the rationale offered by Star Tribune "reader's representative" Kate Parry for the Star Tribune's publication of the story here. Parry conteded that the story had "news value" because "Fine was arrested by the police, charged with domestic assault and spent a few hours in jail" and that "the allegations raised in the court documents were corroborated by the ex-wife in interviews with Star Tribune reporters." Parry did not mention or comment on the expungement of the arrest.
At the Star Tribune's online site, editor Anders Gyllenhaal has also offered his rationale for the publication of the story. Anyone who suspects that the Star Tribune offices are something of an echo chamber won't be disabused of the notion by Gyllenhaal's comments:
Several elements contributed to the decision to run the story: The officers who answered the domestic call decided to pursue the arrest and sent Fine to jail; the candidate’s former wife told reporters last week that the assault occurred even though she ended up withdrawing the charge; Fine’s former father-in-law, a local judge, backed up his daughter and said he’d been told of other instances of domestic abuse. Gyllenhaal concludes by asserting that Fine's 1995 arrest and domestic dispute is part of its "full portrait" of Fine. Like Parry, Gyllenhaal omits any mention of the fact that Fine's arrest was expunged and, like McEnroe and Olson, Gyllenhaal fails to reveal whether the Star Tribune's source for the document obtained or released it legally to the Star Tribune.
It is difficult to overstate the vacuity of Parry's and Gyllenhaal's comments. Alan Fine was arrested in 1995 based on his wife's charge. His wife repeated the charge in 2006. Also in 2006, the ex-wife's father "backed up his daughter" -- i.e., repeats what his daughter allegedly told him in 1995. Despite all the huffing and puffing, the Star Tribune's story rests on the word of Alan Fine's wife.
The fact of the arrest -- the fact that Alan Fine's wife had charged him with domestic assault in 1995 -- was known by the Star Tribune this past May when the Star Tribune found an online reference to the arrest. Having now obtained the expunged arrest record, the Star Tribune knows that Alan Fine was indeed arrested for domestic assault in 1995. Does anything in the records obtained by the Star Tribune substantiate the charge that Fine assaulted his wife? Apparently not. McEnroe and Olson describe the arrest report as follows:
The report states that officers arrested Fine in his home at 3907 Zenith Av. S. after his then-wife told them that Fine had assaulted her. Police noted in the report that Fine had scratches on his face and chest. That's it. To outward appearances, Alan Fine was perhaps the victim of an assault by his wife; the Star Tribune does not report any fact to substantiate the wife's assault charge other than the fact of Fine's arrest. Contrary to Kate Parry's statement and the implication of Anders Gyllenhaal's comments, the wife's reiteration of her withdrawn 1995 charge in 2006 does not "corroborate" it.
McEnroe and Olson's story suggests that the alleged assault was litigated in the 1996 divorce proceedings:
Fine stated in an affidavit connected with the divorce proceedings that his then-wife "admitted to me, in the presence of another person, that she had made a mistake in having me arrested and that her allegations were untrue." Fine was asked repeatedly by reporters to identify who that other person was. He said he could not remember.
According to Rebecca Wexler's divorce affidavit, the alleged assaults started in late 1993 when she was two months pregnant. "In the middle of an argument, [Fine] suddenly slapped me across the face with sufficient force to knock me to the ground," she stated in her affidavit.
She said in the affidavit that he "took a few steps away, then turned around and said, 'Wait, let me get the other side,' and slapped me on the side of my face." When he returned to the house that evening, she said she ordered him to leave. When he slapped her again, she said, she called police and Fine was arrested.
The assault evidence introduced in the divorce proceedings would be relevant only to the custody of Alan Fine's son. McEnroe and Olson, Parry and Gyllenhaal all omit to mention that the divorce court (as I understand matters) awarded Fine custody of his son. The Star Tribune fails to report on the disposition of custody in the divorce proceedings.
The assault charge was never adjudicated in 1995 and the Star Tribune has not undertaken the effort necessary to pass judgment on it in 2006. The arrest was based on the allegation of Fine's wife, which she withdrew at the time and reiterated in 2006. Alan Fine disputed the charge then and now. Having obtained the police report, the Star Tribune reports on physical evidence suggesting that Alan Fine was assaulted in 1995. The only adjudication related to the assault charge apparently favored Alan Fine. The arrest was expunged by court order and the arrest record sealed in 2004.
Based on the available evidence, I think the Star Tribune has wronged Alan Fine by publishing McEnroe and Olson's story, and that Kate Parry and Anders Gyllenhaal have compounded the wrong in their vacuous and misleading defense of it.
CORRECTION: Alan Fine was not awarded custody in his divorce proceeding; his wife wife awarded full physical custody and Fine was awarded joint legal custody. According to Fine, his ex-wife herself was subsequently convicted of domestic assault against their son and convicted of assault on another occasion involving a third party. A child protection order was entered against his ex-wife in 2003. Fine was granted temporary full physical custody of his son in 2003.
At the current time Fine has joint physical and legal custody and his son primarily resides with Fine under a court order entered in 2004. Fine tells me that the police advised him at the time of the 1995 arrest that they were obligated to arrest him under a mandatory arrest policy; I have not been able to confirm that the Minneapolis Police had such a policy in 1995. In short, i believe that the Star Tribune left so many relevant facts out of the story that it cannot withstand scrutiny.
...his ex-wife herself was subsequently convicted of domestic assault against their son and convicted of assault on another occasion involving a third party. A child protection order was entered against his ex-wife in 2003. Fine was granted temporary full physical custody of his son in 2003..
The question is not whether Gyllenhaal and his newspaper are fair but whether they are honorable. Carrying water for Democrats and their views trumps any kind of human decency.
The way the corrupt feminist courts are, the ex-wife had to an an absolute horror to get an order of protection restraining her from assaulting HER SON. The newspaper did not do even the most minimal research in this blatant hack job.
This kind of behavior by the left wing press is beyond disgusting.
You're not surprised by that, are you?
Another reason why the Kennedy is behind dim hack Amy Klobacher for Senate. They make up the facts and there's no alternative paper!
Just another in a long string of ugly stories from the leftist elitists....
What the Star Tribune doesn't mention is that there's a pending domestic restraining order hearing coming up against Keith Ellison, on Oct. 23 I believe. It's being asked for by Ellison's former baby sitter.
There are a lot of indications that Klobuchar herself or someone on her staff leaked the records about Alan Fine. If this could be ferreted out before the election it could sink both Keith Ellison and Amy Klobuchar.
What are the odds? Atleast Jason Lewis is back! I, unfortunately, live in the 5th district. I have my Fine sign in the yard . I never want to be mistaken for a Rat!!
Yeah, so? What are the Pubs gonna do about it (answer: nothing).
The question is not whether Gyllenhaal and his newspaper are fair but whether they are honorable. Carrying water for Democrats and their views trumps any kind of human decency.Yeah, so? What are the Pubs gonna do about it (answer: nothing).
The only possible response to the tendentiousness of "objective" journalism is to point out that claiming to be objective is pure sophistry. Journalism functions as an establishment which rewards its members for good behavior with the adjective "objective" and rewards fellow travelers with labels like "liberal," "progressive," and "moderate."By claiming to be objective, journalism identifies itself with the public interest. And yet journalism justifies its behavior in terms of its own particular interest. Journalism admits that it does not cover the good news from Iraq, but only the bad news. And justifies that because it sells newspapers. But then turns right around and belabors the administration over the fact that the news they publish is bad!
Far from being objective, journalism is very near to pure self-interest. Journalism is only talk, so it tears down the reputation of people who take necessary action in order to buttress its own reputation. Journalism mercilessly second guesses industry, the police and the military - and the Republican Party which defends them.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
It is rather pointless to discuss the terms fair and honorable when discussing the RED STAR. This rag is so far left, Garrison Keelor thinks it is mainstream.
Puts me in mind of the gubernatorial campaign in Illinois
Friday Oct 06, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=8aa003e2-fa02-48b1-8bf1-c1ff3ce0cf1d
Minneapolis Star Tribune's Eric Black on his treatment of the controversial Patty Wetterling ad this week.
Hugh Hewitt
After two days of request to appear on the program, Mr. Black consented to appear, and Hugh and he engaged in a long interview dissecting the appropriateness of the ad, the appropriateness of the coverage of the ad by the Strib, and appropriateness of disclosing biases in the newsroom in general.
Length: 00:32:46
___________________________________________
Hugh Hewitt Vs. Eric Black II: The Quest For the L Word
Hugh Hewitt
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=dc45c6ea-70f1-48fc-92d0-72a163b34a08
Lie or no lie...that was one of many questions in this epic follow up interview with Minneapolis Star Tribune political beat reporter, Eric Black.
Length: 00:59:39
Exactly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.