Kaimin: Krakauer repeats some of Rolling Stones' mistakes

I was surprised to read this editorial in the Kaimin. I don't necessarily agree with the lede: That the book is good, but could have been great. But full disclosure, I haven't read the book, so I can't easily pass judgment.

However, I think, based on what we know, it is lousy journalism when you make serious accusations against many of the people at the center of the story, and yet you refuse to interview them, or try to get their side of the story. Whether it is done because you are trying to rush the story into print, or because you have a particular narrative in mind, and you don't want the facts to mess with the course you plan to take.

Anyway, that's a key point being made by the editorial writer, and it is refreshing to see that at least someone at the journalism school realizes it. The writer says: "Krakauer’s failure to thoroughly interview Missoula County Attorney Kirsten Pabst and former county attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, vilified as Satan the Devil and Lucifer Prince of Darkness respectively, is the book’s most glaring flaw."

Nonetheless, the writer also does fall back on some of the standard femi-speak, claiming that prosecutors and juries side with accused rapists rather than victims. He also says society is to blame for this mess, and Krakauer should have spent more time the Missoula culture that allowed all this to happen.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/editorial/article_6c799d62-e8c8-11e4-8563-afd3f46be22a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

grizonbob said:

I was surprised to read this editorial in the Kaimin. I don't necessarily agree with the lede: That the book is good, but could have been great. But full disclosure, I haven't read the book, so I can't easily pass judgment.

However, I think, based on what we know, it is lousy journalism when you make serious accusations against many of the people at the center of the story, and yet you refuse to interview them, or try to get their side of the story. Whether it is done because you are trying to rush the story into print, or because you have a particular narrative in mind, and you don't want the facts to mess with the course you plan to take.

Anyway, that's a key point being made by the editorial writer, and it is refreshing to see that at least someone at the journalism school realizes it. The writer says: "Krakauer’s failure to thoroughly interview Missoula County Attorney Kirsten Pabst and former county attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, vilified as Satan the Devil and Lucifer Prince of Darkness respectively, is the book’s most glaring flaw."

Nonetheless, the writer also does fall back on some of the standard femi-speak, claiming that prosecutors and juries side with accused rapists rather than victims. He also says society is to blame for this mess, and Krakauer should have spent more time the Missoula culture that allowed all this to happen.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/editorial/article_6c799d62-e8c8-11e4-8563-afd3f46be22a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Doesn't Gwen Florio work at the Kaimin for UM?

getgrizzy said:

grizonbob said:

I was surprised to read this editorial in the Kaimin. I don't necessarily agree with the lede: That the book is good, but could have been great. But full disclosure, I haven't read the book, so I can't easily pass judgment.

However, I think, based on what we know, it is lousy journalism when you make serious accusations against many of the people at the center of the story, and yet you refuse to interview them, or try to get their side of the story. Whether it is done because you are trying to rush the story into print, or because you have a particular narrative in mind, and you don't want the facts to mess with the course you plan to take.

Anyway, that's a key point being made by the editorial writer, and it is refreshing to see that at least someone at the journalism school realizes it. The writer says: "Krakauer’s failure to thoroughly interview Missoula County Attorney Kirsten Pabst and former county attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, vilified as Satan the Devil and Lucifer Prince of Darkness respectively, is the book’s most glaring flaw."

Nonetheless, the writer also does fall back on some of the standard femi-speak, claiming that prosecutors and juries side with accused rapists rather than victims. He also says society is to blame for this mess, and Krakauer should have spent more time the Missoula culture that allowed all this to happen.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/editorial/article_6c799d62-e8c8-11e4-8563-afd3f46be22a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Doesn't Gwen Florio work at the Kaimin for UM?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The faculty doesn't work on the paper; students do. And the paper doesn't doesn't list her among staff members.

She did write a story for them about the Kaimin going to once-a-week from five-times a week publication, which was odd.

grizonbob said:

getgrizzy said:

grizonbob said:

I was surprised to read this editorial in the Kaimin. I don't necessarily agree with the lede: That the book is good, but could have been great. But full disclosure, I haven't read the book, so I can't easily pass judgment.

However, I think, based on what we know, it is lousy journalism when you make serious accusations against many of the people at the center of the story, and yet you refuse to interview them, or try to get their side of the story. Whether it is done because you are trying to rush the story into print, or because you have a particular narrative in mind, and you don't want the facts to mess with the course you plan to take.

Anyway, that's a key point being made by the editorial writer, and it is refreshing to see that at least someone at the journalism school realizes it. The writer says: "Krakauer’s failure to thoroughly interview Missoula County Attorney Kirsten Pabst and former county attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, vilified as Satan the Devil and Lucifer Prince of Darkness respectively, is the book’s most glaring flaw."

Nonetheless, the writer also does fall back on some of the standard femi-speak, claiming that prosecutors and juries side with accused rapists rather than victims. He also says society is to blame for this mess, and Krakauer should have spent more time the Missoula culture that allowed all this to happen.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/editorial/article_6c799d62-e8c8-11e4-8563-afd3f46be22a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Doesn't Gwen Florio work at the Kaimin for UM?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The faculty doesn't work on the paper; students do. And the paper doesn't doesn't list her among staff members.

She did write a story for them about the Kaimin going to once-a-week from five-times a week publication, which was odd.

Click to expand...

grizonbob, if you think about it, we have our own Angel of Death, AKA MsMaroon, The Killer of Threads. The Kaimin merely has their own version. :thumb:

I'm feeling bad because I started this thread the other day to compliment an editorial in the Kaimin on the Krakauer book, but now they've followed up with one of the most inane opinion pieces I've ever seen in print. The Kaimin's basic argument is this: Too many rapists get off scot free because too many UM students don't show up to serve on juries that would lock them up.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/editorial/article_20755340-ee1b-11e4-8b4f-3b2af1b21c90.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The County Attorney's Office doesn't refuse to prosecute most sexual assault cases in mere deference to the accused, but because they know the futility of getting a conviction from a jury made up of pensioners, Griz fans, Daines voters and other civic-minded citizens with traditional views on the value of women," the editorial writer claims.

"Attorneys defending accused rapists have the easy job of spoon-feeding Missoulian (sic) juries their darkest suspicions: the accuser's behavior was irrational, so the sex was obviously consensual, they're lying to cover their promiscuity and only interested in settlement money. Physical evidence and the science of sexual trauma are no match for a jury convinced the accuser is a greedy lying slut."

The writer doesn't really offer any facts/figures to back up his/her argument. In fact, what is there refutes the claims. The writer says Missoula County had the 2nd highest rate of voter registration on 2014, but the 3rd lowest rate of voter turnout the same year. And the author notes that, when you register to vote, you also qualify for jury duty. The problem, says the author, is that UM students are abandoning this responsibility -- and thus rapists are getting off.

What the author doesn't tell readers is that voting is an option -- but jury duty isn't. If you get a notice to serve on a jury, you have to show up at the court house.

The author also provides no evidence whatsoever that the folks he so looks down upon --"pensioners, Griz fans, Daines voters and other civic-minded citizens with traditional views on the value of women" -- are indeed more likely to acquit anyone accused of rape.

In other words, the author is like Sabrina Erderly, the writer for the Rolling Stone who just made up facts to fit the rape culture narrative she had in mind for the University of Virginia.

No wonder journalism is in a world of hurt today.

Wow. That's one of the most disappointing things I've read in some time. The mere suggestion that the elderly or conservatives are more inclined to find a defendant not guilty is insulting, and the suggestion that students and liberals are more likely to abdicate their roles as a jury member and find someone guilty no matter the evidence is reprehensible.

Frankly, I read that piece twice and a part of me is still wondering if it was meant to be taken seriously.

The great thing about editorials is you don't have to put your name to it, so you can say any stupid shit you want.

Indeed, I did a quick Google search and found a piece by the Freakonomics folks. Among other things, they cite a study that showed that defense attorneys usually try to keep older people off juries because they are more likely to convict and they want younger people on their juries (this apparently applies to all criminal cases, including rape cases).

So that definitely refutes what the Kaimin editorialist is saying.

http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/07/are-older-jurors-more-likely-to-convict/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Kaimin Editorial unfortunately now qualifies as a "Rolling Stone" quality piece.

Any fact checking on that?

Missoula? A highly progressive community, with a higher proportion of young people than non-University towns?

Missoula Jury pools tend to weight heavily to school teachers, hospital employees, University employees, and Federal Government employees. I would guess that the pool makeup is about 80% of people that consider themselves "progressive."

Does the Kaimin explain why Missoula has a higher conviction rate than the national average?

Unfortunately, an example of a bigoted and ideological mindset. Sorry to see it at the Kaimin. Maybe the cutbacks were a good thing if it wants to put out that self-satisfying tripe.

Kaimin editors apparently don't understand that you can't walk in and volunteer for jury duty -- you need a summons. If you don't have one, you can't serve, now matter how badly you want to get on that jury. If you do have one and fail to show, you're in contempt. Kaimin editors seem also not to understand how voir works to filter out zealots who want to get on a jury to make a point.

griz8791 said:

Kaimin editors apparently don't understand that you can't walk in and volunteer for jury duty -- you need a summons. If you don't have one, you can't serve, now matter how badly you want to get on that jury. If you do have one and fail to show, you're in contempt. Kaimin editors seem also not to understand how voir works to filter out zealots who want to get on a jury to make a point.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they have confused what it takes to become a jury member with what it takes to become a Kaimin editor? Just a thought...

The editors also fail to realize that not all students are going to rush out and register to vote while living in Missoula temporarily while they attend school. I kept my voter registration in my home county and voted absentee while in college, and I don't think that is all that uncommon to do.

grizonbob said:

I'm feeling bad because I started this thread the other day to compliment an editorial in the Kaimin on the Krakauer book, but now they've followed up with one of the most inane opinion pieces I've ever seen in print..............No wonder journalism is in a world of hurt today.

Click to expand...

Just because Florio ain't supposed to write editorials means nothing. Give it the' sniff test,' and believe what your gut tells you.

Perhaps Nick Gillespie has put his finger on a big part of the problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/30/trigger-warning-college-kids-are-human-veal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;