Michael Morris – In Focus

Reading the Alamogordo Daily Blather this morning I am left asking just what the bias is over at the ADN. Then it dawned on me that it is not exactly bias that drives the distortions and unequal reporting that permeates into the public through that miscreant gratuitous assault on trees for its paper and soybeans for its ink. As has been pointed out to me over and over again by executives at Media News Group (majority owner of the ADN) the news department merely supports the efforts of the advertising department. While this explains why the ADN seems all over the map when reporting similar events I have to ask you whether the objective of a free press is met in any way by this sort of “journalism”? First we have to define the benefit of an actual free press.

Do we have a free press so you can read about the library events or fundraiser? Of course not. Such items are of little controversy and therefore little threatened by governmental interference. A free press is essential to a free society as a check on governmental abuse/encroachment/etc. that the citizens ought to be aware of. While it is essential when reporting on such events of public interest to get the facts which often include interviews with public officials it is critical that a supposed news organization not become an advocate for any governmental unit. In the matters I wish to compare today the common thread is sensationalism and the gratuitous unquestioned unqualified remarks by police. In the mix we get little real information as collateral issues are discussed ad infinitum while the actual facts that would support the police conclusion printed are not dealt with at all. What we are left with are pictures painted to look a particular way with no regard for the truth of the matter. If you cannot verify something leave it out or note that such supporting evidence is not available or at least something that places at least some context around an un-named cop’s accusation of a death penalty eligible crime.

Here we go. The cases I am looking at are the stabbing case against James. D. King and the fatal apparent stabbing case against Graciela L. Guerra. The similarities in the cases and the differences in those similarities placed into a context make the ADN coverage look absurd. For example in today’s flash News Editor Kandra Wells rambles on endlessly about how the victim was in divorce litigation against the attacker’s son. To me this points to an emotional situation. The same story reports that witnesses heard yelling and fighting in the room before the killing. While it is entirely possible Graciela Guerra planned and executed a plan it is equally possible something else was afoot based on the “factual” information sprinkled throughout this mostly inflammatory circulation grabber. But that will come out in the wash.

To be honest I have a problem in general with a probationer covering the police beat. That just seems to be too much of a conflict to just brush off. Unfortunately the ADN really does not report anything with any degree of accuracy that would help the average reader understand. For instance when Kandra Wells fka Kandra Branham, ADN News Editor and author of today’s feature, oh, sorry, news story in question, was convicted last month in Arkansas for hindering the apprehension of her fugitive brother the ADN reported with reference to sentence [The judge] “sentenced her to 12 months of unsupervised probation”. While I don’t have the specifics of the disposition sentencing one to probation is quite silly. If one is sentenced to probation then what would be the consequence of violating such probation? Duh! Actually one has to understand that the convicted is sentenced to fine and/or jail for a crime. Probation comes about as a result of a trade where the convict promises to be a good girl for some period of time and the court agrees to suspend the sentence subject to the successful completion of the probation term. So the truth is Kandra Wells has jail and/or fines to face in the event she is found to be in violation of the terms of her probation which certainly has something like “obey/follow all laws” among them. Now who handles those kinds of laws? Police of course. I am not saying Wells has engaged in anything unethical as a result of such conflict, but she has some questionable ethics on account of something needing a determination. The probationer is apparently too compromised for use as buyer in a drug sting. You may remember DA Scot Key tried to indict 2 Capitan cops for using what he called extortionate influence over the probationer, so the DA thinks using probation as an extortion tool goes on in his district. Isn’t that enough of a clue that it is better and safer for cops, reporters and the public to just avoid any appearance of impropriety by leaving the probationer off the police beat?

The other case is that of James King, charged in the in the back stabbing of Javier Pacheco. That journalistic effort is being run by local lunatic Lord Karl Anderson. Anderson’s lack of context and word twisting are legendary. No mention was made of the fact that just a short time before King stabbed Pacheco a judgment had been rendered against Pacheco in favor of Mr. King’s associated business ALAMOGORDO ORTHOPAEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE, P.C. which, according to the PRC is not currently in good standing. This is most commonly a problem with taxes and a problem for the owners if running out of standing. Of course King has no part of the PC since he is a nurse and ineligible to own a medical practice. His relationship is in the facility called SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO SURGERY CENTER, LLC which is not a medical practice, but rather an infrastructure somewhat akin to a hospital. What ties this all together are stories surrounding Pacheco’s comments regarding quality of care and where to file said judgment prior to the event at the Palmside. Is this true? I don’t know, but it would explain King turning up doubly armed where Pacheco was drinking. That would support a premeditated act. But why follow that lead?

What we do know is that there was a court action just before the violence just as reported in the Guerra case. We can infer that Guerra went armed. We know King was. All that remains different are the motives and the actual mechanics unless Guerra is covering for another perpetrator, but that is just a thought. The noise of yelling and fighting in Guerra is suggestive of “heat of the moment” yet the police say 1st degree. How is it possible to tell a story including both without being a little curious how something seems inconclusive? Instead we get a story with pictures that look a lot like a crime of passion complete with the associated yelling represented as 1st degree by police. The story makes no more sense than one of a back stabbing by a guy armed to the teeth who fled the scene with cops on his tail being dismissed as an incidental act.

Is it any wonder this DA’s race is so polluted by public misunderstanding of what means what? For example here is what the law says first degree murder consists of:

30-2-1. Murder.

A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused:
(1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;
(2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or
(3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life.
Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony

Is this a killing in the midst of a kidnapping or some extortion? If so paragraph (2) applies regardless of intent. If murder was the plan paragraph (1) applies and is necessarily bound to intent. If the evidence of either of these exist I’m not so sure why this is a big secret. The problem is the reporter did not bother to obtain anything to support the allegation of a capital crime nor did she attribute it to anyone therefore rendering the published accusation unverifiable yet published.

Why is it acceptable to have a newspaper employing sloppy and incompetent people with significant current histories of bunk reporting and bunk living to report the significant issues of the day to the people while at the same time holding even the most minor violator up to much higher standards than are applied in the ADN hiring process? As important as a free press is to a free society it constantly amazes me how the most vocal advocates for freedom are surprised when the ADN punches out another circulation enlargement pill. When you wonder why it took so long to get public the next out of control scandal you can simply search the compendium of compromise at the ADN to pick the cause. Michael Becker, Managing Editor at the ADN has argued consistently that the cause is no more complex than simple incompetence. I just cannot reconcile the severity and regularity with which the Daily Rag leaves out something important in favor of playing down unpleasant realities is the result of such incompetence, especially considering the lengths Anderson went to in order to attempt a lynching of Anthony Wilson on the eve of his embezzlement trial including some urban legend created just for his story. The guy actually made up a story about a defendant and published it, got caught and still has a job. Incompetence?

Just be careful when reading the droppings that stick to the ADN thrown in your bushes. While it is guaranteed 97% Fact Free® there is no reason to believe what you are reading is anything more than a sloppy ass kissing written by people who have proven over and over again that they have no regard for any rules. They get away with it because people want to read salacious regardless of its truthfulness. So much for your free press or the safeguards against governmental abuse. But then again the feature by Anderson on the Old-Timers Day, that he really did not attend, was a nice break from the front page fantasy passing for news.

If truth and accuracy have no seat at the editorial table what place do you suppose justice has in this outpost of the 4th estate?