Catfight! Sheriff’s Office and P-I no longer friends
Man, the Sheriff’s Office is fighting with everyone these days: bicyclists, Seattle Police, and now The P-I. Seems that the King County Sheriff’s Office is officially not pleased with the P-I’s series Conduct Unbecoming, and they’ve filed a complaint with the Washington News Council about it.
“In a letter to the news council dated July 28, Sheriff Sue Rahr charged that a P-I series examining the King County Sheriff’s Office and subsequent stories “have been intentionally biased, unfair, malicious, and lack balance.”
Ken Bunting, the P-I’s associate publisher, said, “Our reporting about the sheriff’s department has been hard-hitting but fair and accurate, and we’re proud of what our reporters have uncovered, the important matters of public concern they raised, and the reform efforts that are under way because of their reporting.”
Which sounds to me like the Sheriff’s Office is saying, “You’re mean and we’re not friends anymore!” and the P-I is responding, “Neener neener, we don’t care!” The News Council encourages the both of them to reach a compromise, although if that’s not possible a public hearing will take place.
When you accuse a newspaper of saying things that are biased and untrue, don’t you normally provide…um…counter-evidence? You’d think legal folk would be all over that aspect.
Having had every opportunity to make amends for the corruption and ineptitude that infest her agency, Sue Rahr instead throws a public temper tantrum.
Well, you know. It’s easier than actually doing something about what sounds like a fairly entrenched problem.
This story disturbed me about the Sheriff’s Office so I wrote them an email, here’s what they sent back (sounds a bit pissed off doesn’t he):
Mr. Bussert:
The Sheriff did not go to the Washington News Council because the P-I made the public aware of “what is going on in the Sheriff’s Office”, as you put it. She went to the WNC because a significant portion of what the P-I wrote was biased, misleading, and lacking in balance.
You write that the Sheriff’s Office “doesn’t care that its officers are not looking out for the public”. Where are you getting this information? We have over 700 deputies currently working here. Do you have any personal, first hand information? Or are assuming everything the P-I has written is true. What if they are wrong? What if they are biased? What if they are misleading you? Would that be a “public service”?
We say they are doing all of this, and we think we can prove it. The P-I isn’t interested in our side of the story. So what would you have us do? The WNC is an independent organization that hears complaints against the news media. We will have our “day in court”, and the P-I will be able to rebut what we say. The hearing will be televised so the public can come to their own conclusions.
But it sounds like your mind is made up and there is no “other side”.
I can assure you there is.
Sgt. John Urquhart
Sheriff’s Office Administration
King County Sheriff’s Office
(206) 296-7528
Yeah, sounds like someone had a big bowl of cranky for breakfast. Which is sort of understandable, and all. Just in case, though, I’d make sure you keep a close eye on all of your pets and other valuables for the next few days.
I’d say I’m looking forward to the opportunity to point and laugh but AND YOU READ IT HERE FIRST, KIDS I’m expecting that at some point before they have to prove anything the SD will drop the complaint.
Sort of like they did with the cyclists arrested at June’s Critical Mass….
On the one hand, if I were Sgt. Urquhart and the PI’s allegations were false, I would also be pretty cranky. On the other, it strikes me that a decent proportion of the things the PI has written about are matters of public record, so I’m finding the argument that they made it all up rather unconvincing.