I got into a bit of a Tweet fight with the editor of the Tucson Weekly who accuses me of defaming their journalists.
If by defaming you mean calling out their falsehoods and checking them on their writer’s privilege from a “legit” newspaper in town, then so be it.
So here is an example that is still in the works and demonstrates how unfairly the Tucson Weekly covers similar issues, in this case alleged domestic violence, dealing with a White and Latino man.
Original Coverage for White Man
In 2010 the Tucson Weekly first wrote about alleged DV involving a state legislator. The lawyer of state legislator was also the Pima Democratic Party chairman, and there is evidence that he worked to silence witnesses because winning that seat for a Democrat is most important right now.
When the Tucson Weekly story was first written, the attorney came in and censored half of it, threatening to sue if any of the other material was published.
The Tucson Weekly caved in.
Also important to note is that the victim, the ex-wife, was the one telling what physical violence took place against her. In other words, despite powerful lawyers, the journalist had an important key witness on their side.
The story also re-emerged two years later with the new girlfriend, and her story also played a key role, along with pictures of the bruises.
Original Coverage for Latino Man
In December the Tucson Weekly gets word of an incident that took place in downtown Tucson involving a Latino Man.
At the same time, one of the Tucson Weekly’s journalist is part of a new group, complete with a blog, that is very anti this Latino Man, and has made that hatred public.
The police reports are from a person who was not even an eyewitness, but just sharing what she heard took place at a nightclub.
The problem is that eyewitnesses, including the “victim,” claim there was no physical assault.
Rather than try to tell the story in that light, that the police report was not from an eyewitness, and that even the ex-wife says nothing happened, the story decides to continue with the hate.
First of all the author denies meeting with the wife and seems to blame the Latino Man’s attorney for it; however the TRUTH is that the attorney allowed the journalist to meet with the ex-wife at his own office, and left them in private.
Rather than try to silence the victim, he was helping the victim tell her story.
The journalist interviews other eyewitnesses who say there was no beating, but conveniently leaves that part out also.
Instead she fills up the rest of her story with what this new women’s group thinks of the situation, and of course never cites her own conflict-of-interest as a member of this group.
Follow-ups on the story
The Tucson Weekly journalist was “keeping up” with both stories, including checking in with the City Attorney for the latest.
With the White Man, she attended the court hearings and was the first to report that charges against the White Man were being dropped.
With the Latino Man, the City Attorney says that this journalist has been calling almost everyday for the latest… HOWEVER, it turns out that the charges would also be dropped in this case also.
Why did the Tucson Weekly journalist stop following the story? It was her story after all, and she was the first journalist in town to cover it. Why did she not attend, nor report that the charges were dropped.
It is all public record after all, and this is what Dan Gibson claims the Tucson Weekly bases their stories on.
So why report that the charges for the White Man had been dropped but not report the charges for the Latino Man had been dropped?
Is it because it goes against the belief of her new women’s club that the Latino Man and his Attorney are the most evil person’s in Tucson? That is not hard to prove if you analyze all their writings for the year so far.
It is clear that the Tucson Weekly has biased writing. When it comes to attacking the Latino Man they are all for it, but when it comes to reporting the PUBLIC RECORD that charges were dropped… eh…
But you did it for the White Man… so why are treating these two men differently?
Call it racism, call it man-hate (since it cannot be sexism), but it is surely sloppy journalism. Especially when you consider that journalists make a special effort not to attend functions for fear of showing a bias, yet the Tucson Weekly journalist has no problem showing up in costume to proclaim her clear bias?
Keep it classy Tucson Weekly.
On a positive note, it’s an honor to be so hated, as a blogger, by what will soon be Tucson’s only remaining newspaper. This in the anti-Latino state of Arizona, with people like Jan Brewer, Sheriff Arpaio, Tom Horne, John Huppenthal, and John Pedicone in charge… you make your target the Latino Man, his Latino attorney who represented many of these women pro bono when they were arrested at the state building, and the Latino blogger?
Attack who you will, but at least declare your conflicts of interest, and please report the whole story, from beginning to end, just as you do with the White Man.