Friday, January 17, 2025

Media Disaster: LAW360 & The Death Penalty

Could This Article Help Upend Journalism?

Of course not. Journalism, has been upending itself, on the death penalty, for, at least, 30 years. LAW360 answered none of the questions nor informed their readers  of the many journalism problems. The norm.

enter Media Disaster in the search box, for many, many more.
======

Sent January 22, 2023
edits, only for clarity, January 17, 2025

To: Jack Karp, Karin Roberts, LAW360
please forward to all LAW360 editors
 
BCC:  Governor Kevin Stitt
Oklahoma Legislators and staff
Attorney General  John O’Connor and staff
Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Pardon and Parole Board
District Attorneys' Council
media throughout Oklahoma and CNHI Newspapers
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
Catholic Conference of Oklahoma
 
RE: Could This Case Help Upend The Death Penalty In Oklahoma?, Jack Karp, LAW360, January 20, 2023
 
Subject: REBUTTAL: Richard Gossip's Innocence?!
 
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, Houston, Texas, CV at bottom
 
Reporting? Journalism? Let's Look.
 
1) Why did LAW360 only interview anti-death penalty folks? They only wanted their opinions.
 
2) See pro death penalty experts, here (1).
 
3) Death Row "Innocent"/"Exoneration" frauds are in the 71-83% range, depending upon review (2). Unmentioned. Likely, 360Law never fact checked nor vetted
 
4) Massive, worldwide death row "innocence" frauds are well documented (2). Unmentioned.
 
5) Reporters should  not have excluded the judicial opinions, while, only, reporting on anti-death penalty activists. Obvious and had to be intentional.
 
6)  What adult, death penalty involved  person would say:
 
"Three years ago (2020), I honestly did not think it was even possible to have somebody innocent on death row."? 
 
That would be Rep. Kevib McDugle,  Oklahoma House of Representatives. McDugle is an "honest" idiot or an "honest" liar and you didn't question him on that?
 
7) Did you happen to research this?: 
 
Rep. Kevin McDugle's op/ed: "I believe Richard Glossip is innocent. This is why",  The Oklahoman, June 26, 2022, which prompted this:
 
Rep. McDugle is Total Blank on Richard Glossip's "Actual Innocence" in that article.  - Why? Guess.
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/05/rep-mcdugle-total-blank-on-richard.html
 
8) Dunham is the biggest "innocent"/"exonerated" death row fraudster in the US (2) and you didn't bring that up? On purpose? How could it be accidental?
 
9) Sarat is an anti-death penalty activists who happens to be an academic (3). Unmentioned.
 
10) After 14 years of consideration, Gossip was blank. During Glossip's 2014 clemency hearing, "Board members asked Glossip why he lied to police about (Barry Alan) Van Treese’s whereabouts after he was made aware by Sneed that Sneed had killed their boss. Glossip said at first he did not believe Sneed, but he was unable to give the board a reason as to why he did not report the crime to police." Left out. Huge negligence
 
11) Did you read  Reed Smith's 6/7/2022 "Independent Investigation of   State v. Richard E. Glossip"?   The Summary and Conclusion have no mention of actual innocence. Unmentioned, as well as that Reed Smith was acting, only as defense counsel, as was obvious. Unme6ntioned, Reed Smith is an active pro criminal, pro bono group. Unmentioned. Both, on purpose? How not.
 
12) What's the best Reed Smith could do, for Glossip: "Unlike many cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the evidence of petitioner’s (Glossip) guilt was not overwhelming.”
 
Reed Smith and LAW360 avoid the obvious. The two juries, unanimously (24-0) found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the appellate courts have upheld that verdict, in the later, for 20 years.
 
13)  Here are some journalists who "really" looked at the case, very early on. LAW 360, notice the title of the second.
 
Two truths and a lie: What records, interviews reveal about Richard Glossip’s murder conviction, CARY ASPINWALl, The Frontier, SEPTEMBER 13, 2015
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/
 
Skepticism, key details missing from stories on Glossip case, ZIVA BRANSTETTER, The Frontier, AUGUST 29, 2015 HTTPS://WWW.READFRONTIER.ORG/KEY-DETAILS-MISSING-FROM-STORIES-ON-GLOSSIP-CASE/ 
 
and LAW360?
 
Reporting? Journalism? Part of the Defense Team?
 
FN
 
1)  Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html
 
2) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000 
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
 
3) Rebuttal: Botched Executions
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/01/rebuttal-botched-executions.html

======
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
 
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
 
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
======

 
Partial CV, Dudley Sharp
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html
 


Posted by at

Saturday, January 04, 2025

Media Disaster: A Professor's Abandonment of Journalism Standards?

 To: Prof. Thomas Moran,  Visiting Lecturer of Writing, 
School of Communication, University of Central Arkansas

BCC: Parents of Murdered Children, Arkansas
Arkansas Governor, Lt.. Gov, Atty. Gen., & their staffs, boards & commission members
Arkansas House, Senate and all staff
2024-2025 Chapter Officers & Board Members, Arkansas Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists
Arkansas Press Assoc.
Media throughout Arkansas
Arkansas College Media Association
Arkansas Journalism/Communications Depts. and Colleges
Arkansas Secretary of Corrections Lindsay Wallace, staff and board
Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Assoc.

Subject The Death Penalty: A Professors Abandonment of Journalism Standards?

Reference: your email below

From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

Professor Moran:

Preface
 
Sadly, you, intentionally, missed the, only and obvious, points, which is that journalist Philp Martin, intentionally, failed to fact check and vet and eschewed critical thinking and pro death sources, the points in every rebuttal of Martin.

Sadly, unsurprisingly, you acted in the same fashion, as Martin. As I stated, this is very common by both journalists and professors, within this debate.

Somehow, you are unaware how important those points are within your "university (and your) courses" and within journalism.

Moran equates fact checking, vetting and critical thinking  with "shutting up". He could not be, more, far gone.

======

Instead of utilizing fact checking, vetting and using critical thinking, you ignored them, as Martin, and you, personally, attacked me, with points that you have no proof of. You just made things up. That is how professional you are. Do better.

All of my factual and rational corrections of Martin, had back up, with all sources. They are still there. 

Your email had none;

Fact checking, vetting and critical thinking are all necessary, fundamental and, hugely, important practices in journalism, which Martin avoided, not just once, but twice, as did you. I suspect, like Martin, you fact checked and vetted, nothing, because it, never, entered your mind, as your email suggests.

Those were my, only, topics.

Both Martin's opinion piece and his reply, to me, were filled with facts, all of which I rebutted, with sources. Likely, unnoticed by you, as those topics, somehow, evaded your mention, comprehension and/or interest.  Which?

Opinions are, only, as good as the facts and reasoning behind them.

Your suggestion to Martin's irresponsibility is not for Martin to become more responsible, but that readers should not read such irresponsibility. 

Is that how you cover factual errors, non vetting and non critical thinking, within your lectures? You make that an obvious question.

Do you not see your abandonment of journalism standards?  I see it, very often, with no effort, to do better.

In Closing

I am more than happy to present all of this material, inclusive of our exchange(s), to all your students, this semester and then you and I can have a thoughtful discussion with all of your students or, better, in a conference hall, with an invitation to all students and professors, with the subject title:

Is The Death Penalty the Canary in the Journalism Mineshaft?:
Are Fact Checking and Vetting Vanishing in Journalism?

I am ready. Let's do it.

Note: Media ethics and best practices include the importance of accuracy fairness, fact checking, vetting, deceptions, minimizing harm, diversity, different perspectives, accountability and transparency, among others
 
Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 07:07:02 PM CST, Thomas E. Moran <tmoran2@cub.uca.edu> wrote:

 Mr. Sharp,

It isn’t a newspaper’s job to think for you. If you don’t like their articles or coverage, don’t read them. There are many valid reasons to dislike and/or avoid every single form of print media, but this reaction is probably the most absurd ones I’ve encountered. You disagree with the author’s opinion, and you are throwing a virtual tantrum about it. You aren’t entitled to receive a paper that parrots your existing position on capital punishment—or any topic, for that matter. You are the exact thing you claim to hate. Do not email me again unless it is regarding material relevant to the university or my courses. Simply put, I do not care about your irrational reactions or your inability to accept disagreement. I am not employee of the AGD nor WEHCO media, and I believe their editorial staff should be free to publish whatever articles and stories they choose, regardless of the pushback they might receive from religious fanatics, delusional sports fans, political cultists, disgruntled parents, or any other group that creates their own victimhood. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that the ADG continue to write about the very things you want them to shut up about. The ADG newsroom is staffed with employees from every corner of the political spectrum. If that bothers you, media of all forms might not be for you.

Sincerely,
Thomas E. Moran

======

On Jan 2, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Dudley Sharp <sharpjfa@aol.com> wrote:

To: Parents of Murdered Children, Arkansas
Ar. Governor, Lt.. Gov, Atty. Gen., & their staffs, boards & commission members
Arkansas House, Senate and all staff
2024-2025 Chapter Officers & Board Members, Arkansas Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists
Arkansas Press Assoc.
Media throughout Arkansas
Arkansas College Media Association
Arkansas Journalism/Communications Depts. and Colleges
Arkansas Secretary of Corrections Lindsay Wallace, staff and board
Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Assoc.

Subject: Philip Martin/Democrat-Gazette & The Death Penalty:  Factual Rebuttal All Points w/Sources

From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

Preface

Can media/"journalists" fail to fact check and vet, accidently? Of course not, it must be intentional.

The media norm, with my near 30 years experience with media, is for them to use anti-death penalty resources, fail to fact check or vet them, avoid critical thinking and eschew pro-death penalty resources, as with the referenced (1) - twice - with both Martin's original article and his response, as detailed:

Media Disaster: Philip Martin & The Death Penalty: All Points Rebutted w/Sources


FN

1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
 
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
Pro Death Penalty Quotes 
=====
Victim Services
======
 
Partial CV
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)