What is in the water over at the Pahrump Valley Times that makes their unnamed writers go ape shit over the questioning of the honesty of their reporting.
The Daniel Robbin's case was in the news last week. Robbins is the guy in Pahrump who killed the young boyfriend of his daughter after the the victim, despite warnings to not come over to the Robbins house, came anyways and refused to leave, despite the fact that Robbins fired a warning shot at the car before he shot the young victim.
I don't know if Robbins is guilty of a crime or not, but he certainly has angered the court system in Pahrump. Judge Kimberley Wanker had to be thrown off the case because her clear bias in the case and a new judge, Judge Robert Lane was assigned.
He again denied bail to Robbins and really didn't say why except to repeat what the disgraced judge, Judge Wanker said. Ok, I disagree with the ruling and stated so in the comment section.
But then there was this in the article:
Lane seemed to want to avoid any outbursts in court — more than a dozen Robbins supporters, dressed in purple with yellow ribbons tacked to their shirts crowded one side of the courtroom — and so decided he would make his ruling outside the hearing.
The article was written by Matt Ward, editor of the PVT, and as I have shown many times, Ward is not a journalist, but an activist and he has quite a temper against conservatives. He thinks conservatives are nut jobs and has little respect for them. He thinks he is a muckraker but in reality, he is just a bully who hides behind the pen. Journalism ethics have no meaning to Ward.
Anyways, there is no quote from the judge that this was the reason why Judge Lane gave the ruling outside the court room. Ward presents nothing except to say that a bunch of Robbins supporters were in the courtroom, dressed in purple and wearing yellow ribbons. Wow, what a scary looking bunch, a bunch of people looking like Barney the dinosaur. Again, this shows Ward's prejudice- Ward thinks that Robbin's supporters have so little self control that there would be major outbursts in the courtroom if the decision was read in open court. Of course, it seems like Judge Wanker has the anger issues in this case as she was the one who had a verbal outburst in court that was recorded by court microphones. But the PVT supports Judge Wanker. Go figure.
So, I questioned this part of the article:
Was this the real reason, or the opinion of the reporter? If this was the real reason, then apparently the judge doesn’t believe in open court.
If this was the opinion of the reporter, then I seriously have some questions about the honesty of the article.
Again, there were no quotes from the judge. No quotes from the judge admonishing the spectators. In fact, there is no mention of increased security in the courtroom. Nothing.
So, this was the PVT response to my question:
You have serious questions about the honesty of the article because the reporter dared to report what happened in court and gave a simple impression — backed up by the judge’s actions — that the ruling was made to avoid outbursts in court? The reporter was there. Were you? If you have questions about this newspaper’s integrity, we invite you take a hike.
Wow, what a way to treat your readers and customers. And take a hike? How mature is that? That is something a elementary school kid would say, not a a presumably college educated person. (And I might add, the PVT writer, aka Matt Ward, would be a huge embarrassment to his 7th grade English teacher)
Further, whoever wrote this didn't even have the guts to put their name on the response. How childish and immature is that? It's like a little kid hiding behind his mom's dress after his sister threatens to beat him up.
Finally, Ward "reporter dared to report what happened in court and gave a simple impression".
Umm, no, Ward gave his opinion, thereby turning the article into an editorial from a news article where only facts are given.
From the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
Presumably, telling a reader to take a hike would violate these standards. But then, maybe Ward doesn't believe he is a journalist or thinks he is above ethical behavior.
Whatever it is, telling a reader to take a hike is quite laughable, to be honest with you. It shows just how immature the writer is.
Next thing they will probably say "Stick a rubber hose up your nose" or "sit on it".