WATE Follow Up
I received and responded to what I’m pretty certain will be the last correspondence I ever get from Tearsa Smith (you can read about our past adventures regarding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban here). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with the issue I raised, would rather change the debate to whether or not is appropriate that I post emails on the WATE Message Board and how the joke a particular commenter here made was mean. And she finally concludes with what a pain in the ass I am when I should be grateful that she took the time to talk to me. She writes:
Dear SAYUNCLE,
Let’s just call this a truce.. I made a wrong judgement (sic) call when I took five minutes out of my hectic work day to answer a viewer’s concern. Yours. It is something I do all the time, especially viewers that challenge my
work. As a reporter I feel you can’t “hide” behind the camera. You are accountable to your viewers. I respect that and I honestly did some searching and still stood by what I reported. I was sensitive to what you
were saying.. that’s why I emailed you again to get your opinion on what you would have categorized the weapons as. Just to keep in mind for my next story. However, with all that said – it wasn’t worth. Between the Sound Off board and your blog website– I guess I am just the bad guy no matter what I say.One of your blog readers even had the nerve to talk about my name being a mistake? A bit mean and unnecessary, but oh well you can’t control what they say. As for me paying “attention to detail” about your name.. that was human error, which I apologized for. I guess that wasn’t good enough either.. But like I said I was carving out a few minutes to answer your concerns. I understand now why some reporters/ anchors don’t address emails at all..
I responded with:
Truce? I never declared war. It was not a wrong judgment to return a legitimate inquiry for clarification. I am glad you are approachable. I write plenty of reporters and editors and probably get a response one out of five times on a good week. It is commendable that you respond to challenges and something you should keep up.
In terms of the issue, you shouldn’t have had to have done any searching. I gave you a link to the United States Code Annotated that addresses what a “semi-automatic assault weapon” is. And, you’ll note, it doesn’t cover “military assault weapons,” which are machine guns. You were wrong. Period.
And I don’t know why you want to change the issue to me posting emails or what a reader comments on my site. It is irrelevant to my concern. Do you want an apology? If so, then I apologize for posting your email. I was unaware you considered those emails private. And you should know that I’ll probably post this one on my site. You have an outlet to report on TV and I have my little web page. My comments section allows anyone to refute what I say. Additionally, WATE has a message board in the event I want to comment on a news story. And I did. Apologies if you took offense to a joke about your name but I don’t delete comments as a general rule unless they are spam.
And I appreciate you carving out a few minutes to answer my concerns. I really do, though you may not believe it.
But, the fact is, your report misled people with respect to what the assault weapons ban covered. This is a pattern in most media outlets which explains the popular support of the ban. However, I have found that when I explain what the ban actually does, most folks change their mind. Too bad you choose to cling to your misleading statement that the ban covered machine guns.
Regards,
I think Ms. Smith needs to toughen up a bit. She seems to be confusing my attack on her assertion with an attack on her. She shouldn’t feel too bad as I had one report on WATE changed already though no correction was issued and the more serious misrepresentation was ignored. She doesn’t understand (or won’t admit) that she made a wrong judgement by referring to the weapons banned by the assault weapons ban as “military assault weapons.”
September 17th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Lordy, after reading all that bawling, I guess the spelling “tears-a” wasn’t a mistake after all. It was right on the money.
FYI, both spellings of judg(e)ment are generally accepted. I prefer to drop the e myself, but not some argue that “judgement” makes more sense, e.g., we don’t drop the e in “acknowledgement.”
September 17th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
My editor, uhm, spell checker disagrees.
September 17th, 2004 at 1:50 pm
As does mine (MS Word). However, American Heritage Dictionary offers it as a (presumably) acceptable variation, and I presume that most others do, as well.
Note also that you spelled it “judgement” yourself later in the same post, even after having sicced Tears-a over it.
September 17th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
You’ll also notice that was in italics, denoting a quote.
September 17th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
it does hurt to read people that disagree with you. It takes a very mature person to calmly read words that are attacking your ideas (which is kind of an extension of your blogself), and respond nicely and with a coherent argument.
that is what bloggers do every day, and this reporter could not keep it up for a few emails, funny huh.
September 17th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
I wasn’t joking about her nice smile and am a little upset that she didn’t also point out how fond of her some of your readers are.
September 17th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
In general, I find that WATE is a little more responsive to citizen input than their counterparts on WBIR and WVLT. The former is clearly in the pocket of the local government, and the latter has a puffed up Liz Tedone. Ugh.
I know that professional journalists don’t like to be viewed as eye candy, but Ms. Smith and Yvonne Nava are very pretty. Makes listening to what they have to say almost bearable. I believe WATE lowered the boom on John Shumaker and were quite balanced in their coverage of the wheel tax debacle. They really didn’t do an accurate job on the expiration of the ban.
September 17th, 2004 at 4:38 pm
Xrlq:
Actually, many people (myself included) do drop the ‘e’ in “Acknowledgment,” and my Oxford American Desk Dictionary also lists both as valid. I actually think it’s one of those “adviser/advisor” things, where one (the dropped ‘e’ / “adviser”) is considered the proper way, but the other way has become accepted over time and repeated misuse.
September 17th, 2004 at 4:49 pm
Irregardless, i’ll just use what my spell checker says is appropriate. I see no need for seperate spellings.
I really wish I could fit bi-monthly and inflammable in there.
September 19th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Irregardless and seperate are wrong. <>iJudgement is debatable, but if you think it is wrong, you should at least fix it in the last sentence of the original post (an assertion by you, not a quote). I’m not sure what your objection is to bi-monthly or inflammable.
September 19th, 2004 at 2:47 pm
I quoted her and denoted that with italics. And i was being smarmy. Nothing will be corrected.
September 19th, 2004 at 10:35 pm
In that case, it’s an odd use of italics, which normally connotes emphasis rather than a quotation. Exception: linguists do often use italics instead of quotes when discussing a word, a prefix, etc.
September 19th, 2004 at 11:51 pm
Remember what your mom (or, dad) use to say about bullies? Reporters, especially gotcha style reporters are often bullies at heart. They might not be the kind of people who want to steal your lunch money or bloody your nose, but they are people that get a kick out of beating up on their subjects. And, when they subjects fight back they get whiney. It’s not new behavior. You’ve seen this before.