Comments on: Watchdog Institute responds

By: Kelly Davis

Kelly Davis — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:40:02 +0000

Hmmmm: The key word is “paroled.” If you’re a sex offender on parole, you’re under CDCR jurisdiction. Currently, all sex offenders under CDCR jurisdiction are in compliance, according to CDCR. See this statement from Runner after the February 2007 court ruling: http://cssrc.us/web/17/news.aspx?id=2219 Or, here’s an excerpt:

“We are pleased with Judge Karlton’s decision today. The decision allows us to continue to move forward on implementing Prop 83 and apply the new residency restrictions to sex offenders as they are being released from prison,” said Senator Runner.

As for your other points, I did a pretty extensive story on the impact of residency restrictions and the truth about recidivism rates last year: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/sex_offenders/6840/

Not sure what’s so wrong about fighting for journalistic accuracy.

By: Hmmmm

Hmmmm — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:24:36 +0000

Well I might suggest that readers go read this (http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2009121419324093&post_offsetP=0&authID=2008071718215560) in which the author of the Jessica’s law doesn’t make any distinction between offenders pre and post passage. (From the article posted on 12/15 – “Everyone knows that Jessica’s Law requires paroled sex offenders to wear GPS and live at least 2,000 feet from schools. “). Now while I understand the fun of beating up the U.T – and the story could have been clearer – I think the point that they were making that many registered sex offenders live close than 2000 feet from schools is an important addition to the dialogue. WHY that is the case is also an important addition, one in which City Beat has been far better in unpacking than the watchdog. What NEITHER participant in the food fight has focused on is whether it is sustainable. Assuming the same rate of sex offenses in the future and thus a greater percentage of parolees over time subject to the restriction, where will these people live? What communities neighborhoods are “open” to them? Is that good for them, society, recidivism, etc? Aren’t those the important questions to spend time on rather than complaining about jouralistic accuracy and parsing sentances for their implied meaning?

By: roberto

roberto — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:14:40 +0000

Some “Watchdog.” I mean, they got their VERY FIRST STORY totally wrong! OUCH, that’s not a good omen…. Why not just ‘fess up and say “we misinterpreted the law?”

By: Ursula

Ursula — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:37:52 +0000

Keep up the good work Dave & Kelly!

By: Steven J

Steven J — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:47:27 +0000

Kudos to Citybeat on this issue. I have followed via Twitter and it has kept me engaged and curious how the UT/ WDI would respond. Those of us who are often the focus of the media, including the UT, can appreciate that they are also put under the lens for critique too! Keep it up!

By: Kelly Davis

Kelly Davis — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:21:40 +0000

Ricky,

What Lorie responded to was my initial criticism of the story, before I’d had a chance to run it past CDCR, the AG’s office, parole, etc. If you look at my Dec. 15 blog post, I sent Lorie an e-mail detailing everything that was wrong with the article. She never directly responded.

It bums me out that someone in your position is defending such shoddy reporting. Seriously.

By: Dave Maass

Dave Maass — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:41:35 +0000

Way to contribute to the dialogue, Ricky. I would not have expected anything less from an editor of your caliber and expertise. Your insight is enlightening.

By: doug porter

doug porter — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:30:23 +0000

he spirit of the Copley Press era lives on at the Watch dog institute: never let a few facts get in the way of your mission to scare the public.

By: RickyWhy

RickyWhy — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:27:25 +0000

“We finally got a response” is needlessly peevish. Lorie’s was the first comment on your first item on this issue. http://bit.ly/7dK6xS

By: Will Parson

Will Parson — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:17:47 +0000

They weren’t clear in their story so they pick apart Davis’ looking for anything that will let them say, “A-ha! We’re not the only ones!”

That, or a case of psychological projection on Watchdog’s part, denying their own trait while denouncing it in others.

By: Justin McLachlan

Justin McLachlan — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:10:41 +0000

I think what we’re seeing is that the Watchdog, it’s editor and reporters simply don’t understand what they got wrong in the story — which I’ve been saying is the problem from the beginning. They tried to cover material in a sensational “investigative” story that that they’ve not taken the time to really comprehend.

To dig in their heels, in light of mounting authorities that say the entire premise of the story is wrong, says a lot.

I’d also like to see the report Hearn says they used. Who wrote it? Why were it’s numbers wrong? Is that report out and out cited in the story? What’s the date on the report?