Miller immediately complained on his blog, Photography Is Not A Crime, that the Herald was being biased and maintained that he had advised Afshar of the case dispositions.
I went into great detail, explaining how I was acquitted of all charges except resisting arrest after my 2007 arrest, then had that conviction overturned after I appealed it pro se.Most readers who have been following SFDB know that I'm not a big fan of what Carlos Miller does. His mission of establishing photographer's rights sometimes degenerates into nothing more than seeing how far he can go before provoking a police reaction. Indeed, the instant case did not even technically involve photography but rather tested the operational boundaries staked out by police.
I explained to her that the state attorney’s office then dismissed the charge instead of refiling the charge.
I also explained that I was acquitted in my 2009 arrest when the cop failed to show up to court on two occasions. I also told her that even though I was initially charged with disorder intoxication, the state attorney's office switched it to resisting arrest because they had no evidence that I was drunk.
Be that as it may...
As most people already know, the Miami-Dade County Clerk provides online access to criminal and civil cases. When you research Carlos Miller's cases, this is the progression of screens that you follow.
There are only two Carlos Millers....
Click on the one without the middle name...
Click on the 2009 case...
Click on the 2007 case...
And there you have it. The dispositions of the cases. Easily accessible, in black and white and "Known."
There's not one conviction there.
Miller maintained in an email to me this week that he made sure that he advised Ms. Afshar of this fact during a telephone interview.
I remember she asked me specifically the outcome of my cases. I remember I was driving and I pulled over to the side of the road so I could have a clear conversation with her. I remember telling her not to hesitate to call me if she had any questions, no matter what time of the day or night it was.So given the easy availability of the case information and Miller's advisements, the question then becomes why did Paradise Afshar and the Herald's editor allow the story to be published with clearly erroneous and inaccurate information, i.e. that the court dispositions are unknown.
I thought the best person to ask that question was Ms. Afshar. But despite having a very active Twitter presence for the last week, Afshar failed to respond to 2 emails to her Herald email account and 1 Twitter direct message that I sent her. As Miller explains, Afshar and the Herald haven't been very responsive to any one regarding this story...
I wrote a letter to the editor on Friday clarifying the Herald's "outcome of these cases are unknown" statement but it has yet to be published.
My attorney sent her a scathing email on Friday but she never responded.
A reporter from the Poynter Institute who covers media issues is working on a story about it. He said he emailed her but she never responded.
 |
| Via East Word |
When you read a newspaper you hope that you're getting all the facts as they're known when the story is reported. Nothing should be intentionally ignored, omitted, changed or covered up.
Either Paradise Afshar and the Miami Herald intentionally ignored or omitted some material information in this story or we have another fine example of just how bad the Herald can be when it comes to researching and reporting the news. While it's not good news for the Herald [pun intended] either way, it's even worse for people like Carlos Miller who deserve fair, accurate and balanced treatment from their hometown paper.
[The Herald story in its entirety appears below...click to enlarge]
*******
7:00 PM...the Miami Herald has corrected the story to reflect the case dispositions.
In addition, Andrew Beaujon from Poynter.org, finally got someone at the Herald to talk to them about the story.
Afshar declined to speak about the article and directed me to her editor on the story, Pat Andrews. “We should have said The Miami Herald doesn’t know the outcome of those” arrests, Andrews says. “We had not checked the records to know the outcome of those cases.”A couple comments are warranted here, I believe.
Andrews says the mistake is a consequence of newsroom economics. “This, unfortunately, is happening to our industry, especially with a newsathering organization like us.” When it comes to story like Miller’s, Andrews says, “We gotta hit it and move on.” And indeed, the fact that the Herald published a piece about Miller’s arrest three weeks after it happened suggests editors there didn’t think Miller’s arrest was the burning issue he did.
One, Ms. Afshar had more than enough time to tweet away when she could have being spending the five whole minutes it took me to fully research Miller's arrest history. But forget that for a minute and recall that Miller had verbally advised her of those dispositions and still the story went to press with the inaccurate info.
Two, I would suggest that if a story falls into the "hit it and move on" category, maybe that story isn't worth doing if the Herald staff can only do a half-assed job on it three weeks after the fact.
Just sayin'.
******
Carlos Miller comments.
******
March 2, 8:00 AM
The Herald has issued a correction to the story...
It shouldn't have to be so hard.
.
18 comments:
I don't know which I like better, "Paradise Afshar" or "Carless Miller."
Seriously, I root from the sidelines for Carlos, whose brashness and provocative antics are so often exactly what are needed to move the rock up the mountain. I admire his courage as much as his attitude. Remember -- people said the same negative things about the irritant Tom Paine.
As for the Miami Hurled, it's been a third-rate newspaper for a long time, and newspapers today are a shadow of what they were in terms of professionalism, journalistic integrity, etc. Peel off the shellacked veneer in any news story or feature and you'll find error after error, bungled conclusions, misjudgments, etc. Deadlines trump thoroughness.
This isn't to say they're not to be beaten bloody with every available stick.
It looks like Paradise Afshar was too busy feeding her Twitter Feed than to know or care how to respond back to a mistake.
It could have either been her editor or her, but it's not a reason to ignore emails or at least say "The Herald will make a correction" which puts a band-aid over a wound anyway.
Anyway, stupid reporters are usually encouraged by their editors not to return back comments or criticism about their work. The Herald is notorious for having its reporters not ever return emails. We'll see how her "journalism career" does from here.
Keep up the great work, Carlos. You do a far greater service to journalism than many so-called professionals.
OK, so your not a fan of Carlos', fair enough. But you talking about a bias report about Carlos' from the Miami Hearld, which by the way most people believe is bias as well, but then reading your comments about the incident it seems you and your small bias about not liking what Carlos does show its head in your blog.
You said, " the instant case did not even technically involve photography but rather tested the operational boundaries staked out by police".
How can you make a statement that it didn't technically involve Photography? What do you think Carlos was doing? Other than using a video camera, he was recording the police. Yes it did test the operational boundries of the police, but it was definitely about photography, but more importantly its about Carlos' Rights and Freedoms to report the story in public, on public property!
If you look around, your rights and that of all Americans are under attack from all sides. New bills are popping up every where trying to restrict Photography/Videography, the newest about recording farms and farm animals.....ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!! Carlos's may have a unique way of testing the establishment, but policing those in charge/power is the job of all citizens, and if more people stood up for their rights this kinds of thing wouldn't happen every day in America.
If your going to write a story about someone/something try and keep it to the facts, I, and others I'm sure, really don't care about your personal opinion about the person in the story. Your opinion shouldn't be front and center in your article about Carlos or anyone else for that matter, and as a Journalist that works for a very large news agency I find it to be very unprofessional, even for a blogger.
You mean they haven't laid off all of the library clerks yet? Slacker managers!
So what happened to the comment from the guy that called you bias against Carlos in your article about this incident?
It was a good comment, and was factual! Were you afraid for others to read it? Making sure no one makes you look bad?
I find it interesting you removed it from the blog.
"The guy", Keith? It was you! And the comment is right there.
Welcome to the internet. Some day you'll learn how to use it.
.
Actually the Guy that posted the original comment is my collegue and we do know how to use the internet.
I made several comments on the Herald article, including asking why they weren't able to accurately report the story.
And when I checked on Marc 1, 2012 at 6:42pm, the story has been corrected,
I'm not going to get into the case itself but I can tell you that journalist responsibility in the age of instant broadcasting was a huge topic at the NAHJ. It's not just The Miami Herald and this rookie girl.
I had a journo student email me to discuss an issue the night before her article was due at a local university. And she wanted me to answer all the questions in writing. I sure hope that wasn't what her prof taught her, because that's just unacceptable.
Responsibility is key on all reporting. I don't care if it's a
blog or a newspaper. "Don't report it first, report it right" should be the mantra.
I haven't even written more about the Matheson Hammock issue because I'm responsible and there is still a shit load of info I need to fact check. And even though I don't agree with the development, I want to stay fair to the developers.
This university student I talked to... I hope she gets this.
WE STILL GOTTA GET RID OF THESE OUTSOURCED GUARD AGENCIES, CARLOS!---MAYBE A FEW CENTS MORE ON A GALLON OF GAS WILL STARVE THE RATS INTO DESERTING A SINKING SHIP THAT WON'T PAY RAISES...??!
WE ARE HOPEFUL, AS THE CITY OF MIAMI BUDGET COLLAPSES IN THIS ECONOMY-SO WILL THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS AND OUTSOURCED AGENCY THAT HABITUALLY GIVES YOU GRIEF!---OF COURSE- I HAVE "OTHER FISH TO FRY" WITH THEM...
It sounds like the 'Journalist that works for a very large news agency' never learned the difference between News and Opinion.
I think it says a lot for you, Rick, that even when you don't typically agree with a person, you can still be in support of that person when he's been wronged.
If yours was a blog that promoted itself as a 'News' outlet, then there should be an attempt to show no bias. However, that's never seemed to be your goal in this and as such, your opinions are more than welcome.
Although, if you go into the history of the 'freedom of speach and of the press,' it may be even less clear that 'the press' was supposed to be unbiased straight laced news. The reason these rights were given were so that people who didn't agree with prevailing thinking could speak up and not fear retribution. The same way that Carlos Miller has a right to take pictures, you have a right to voice your opinion. (and I hope you continue to do so)
I have no problem with Rick's statements about my recent arrest not being about photography.
If you watch the video I recovered after they deleted it, you will see that none of the cops had an issue with me pointing my camera at them.
The only cop who had a problem with me was that public information officer who not only was seen on the police video shoving me off a sidewalk earlier that night, but singled me out from several other journalists and had me arrested.
Other than that, the only cops I had an issue with that night were a group who attempted to block my shot of an activist getting arrested.
But they eventually backed off and let me get my shot and there really was no harm done.
The recovered video also shows that I was doing nothing to provoke a reaction from them. On the contrary. I didn't speak a word to them for the three-and-a-half minutes prior to my arrest when I was stopped on the sidewalk as I was walking back to my car.
Ultimately, my arrest was about photography because I had just as much as right to be there documenting the operation as those embedded corporate journalists who are friends with the PIO who had me arrested.
But Rick, of course, is entitled to his opinion. And in this piece, his opinion was very supportive of me in how I got dissed by the Herald's flimsy reporting.
So I'm not complaining.
The question is would you still have been arrested if a camera wasn't around your neck? If the answer is "yes," then it isn't about the photography.
Thanks, Silver. I didn't bother responding to that guy's comments because they were so ridiculous.
.
"I would suggest that if a story falls into the "hit it and move on" category, maybe that story isn't worth doing if the Herald staff can only do a half-assed job on it three weeks after the fact"
My thoughts exactly - I couldn't believe that was the excuse an editor at a top-rate paper would give. A blogger sure.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.