Martha Reeves Follow-up Tease

[Steve Wilson]

[quote=kraig;13742]How am I incorrect? quote]

How much clearer could it be? You have a public official--a city council member--collecting mroe than $80,000 a year to work on the city's problems and serve in a leadership role. On the very day AFTER the mayor drops a doomsday budget and the council is to go to work looking for solutions, the officials gets on a plane and heads far away so she can moonlight at her other job.

Now this may not be illegal, as someone pointed out, just as it not illegal for your Congressman to go off on junkets, stay home and watch Guiding Light while eating crackers on the couch, play golf or however else he'd like to while away the time in the midst of a national crisis...but wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't that be an issue when they campaigned again, promising to devote themselves full-time to working in your interest? Wouldn't that help you make an informed choice and separate the campaign bull from what's really hapenning?

[kraig]

Oh puh-leeeeze. First, I am not the police. I am not trying to build a prosecution, I'm producing a news report. Having watched the councilwoman and her aide Mr. Council on numerous occassions--did you SEE the earlier reports of him driving her to night clubs and casinos???--and then receiving documention of his claims to actually be working, coupled with statements from insiders who say he was not...and oh, I did mention the sworn statement that is the basis of the lawsuit, right?...all that together was more than enough for a reasonable news report.

And once again, "ambush interview" is a misnomer here. An ambush is when somebody you don't know, surprises you at time and place you don't expect to encounter them, for a purpose you are not aware of. Ms. Reeves had repeatedly refused requests for an interview, or even a telephone conversation after I had called, identified myself and my purpose. Ambush does not apply. I prefer to call these things "unscheduled accountability sessions" which generally happen only when a public figure refuses to schedule a time to address issues.

1369 does have a point though. Sometimes you appear to jump the gun and report something without getting something that would make your story better.

For example, why didn't you wait until you had footage of Carlita Kilpatrick in the Navigator before you started asking questions and putting the administration on guard?

[Steve Wilson]

...why didn't you wait until you had footage of Carlita Kilpatrick in the Navigator before you started asking questions and putting the administration on guard?

Because the mayor denied such a car was ever purchased. The issue at that time wasn't who was driving it, it was the fact the mayor had ordered the lease of another luxury vehicle at a time the city was in dire trouble--and he was lying about it. When I obtained the actual paperwork to prove this was done--and done in a way that not only grossly overpaid for the car but kept the cost of the one-year lease just dollars beneath the level at which he would have had to run it by the council and make it public--THAT was the story. I didn't even have a PICTURE of the actual car at the point...and don't think I needed it.

Later, of course, WHY it was acquired, WHO is was for, all of that back-channel background became important and we did stories on that, too.

I understand and respect your point of view, but it is my judgment that you cannot always wait until you have every element and associated details of a solid story to come forward with it. And don't you think my early work in this regard--as with Elrick and Shaeffers and others--actually CAUSED more of the details to come out when sources got bold enough to give us leads???

[kraig]

Because the mayor denied such a car was ever purchased. The issue at that time wasn't who was driving it, it was the fact the mayor had ordered the lease of another luxury vehicle at a time the city was in dire trouble--and he was lying about it. When I obtained the actual paperwork to prove this was done--and done in a way that not only grossly overpaid for the car but kept the cost of the one-year lease just dollars beneath the level at which he would have had to run it by the council and make it public--THAT was the story. I didn't even have a PICTURE of the actual car at the point...and don't think I needed it.

Later, of course, WHY it was acquired, WHO is was for, all of that back-channel background became important and we did stories on that, too.

I understand and respect your point of view, but it is my judgment that you cannot always wait until you have every element and associated details of a solid story to come forward with it. And don't you think my early work in this regard--as with Elrick and Shaeffers and others--actually CAUSED more of the details to come out when sources got bold enough to give us leads???

Busted is what you see. LOL

I see your point, but, I still was hoping that there was going to be footage of her in the vehicle from when she had went to Circuit City right before Christmas.

[One4Detroit]

Thanks Steve. Keep up the good work.

[LodgeDodger]

Oh puh-leeeeze. First, I am not the police. I am not trying to build a prosecution, I'm producing a news report. Having watched the councilwoman and her aide Mr. Council on numerous occassions--did you SEE the earlier reports of him driving her to night clubs and casinos???--and then receiving documention of his claims to actually be working, coupled with statements from insiders who say he was not...and oh, I did mention the sworn statement that is the basis of the lawsuit, right?...all that together was more than enough for a reasonable news report.

And once again, "ambush interview" is a misnomer here. An ambush is when somebody you don't know, surprises you at time and place you don't expect to encounter them, for a purpose you are not aware of. Ms. Reeves had repeatedly refused requests for an interview, or even a telephone conversation after I had called, identified myself and my purpose. Ambush does not apply. I prefer to call these things "unscheduled accountability sessions" which generally happen only when a public figure refuses to schedule a time to address issues.

Yes! Unfortunately, many in office don't believe they are accountable. At one time I hoped these "sessions" would move elected officials to be a little more above-board, but they haven't.

Keep up the great work, Mr. Wilson. If you ever need an old, white-haired woman's help with running interference, DO let me know. You'd be amazed at the amount of places an "oldie" can access.