• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Former Prosecutor Calls Out Missoulian

PlayerRep

Well-known member
Saw this link in another thread. Very interesting. Comes from the law office of the former long-time asst Missoula county prosecutor who oversaw criminal prosecutions. Kudos to Kirsten Pabst. Here are some quotes, and the link.

"Without getting into inappropriate detail, I assure you that the foundation for the string of ‘sexual scandal’ articles is not based in fact. The unfortunate reality is that the officials in charge of setting the record straight have their hands tied by the Montana Confidential Criminal Justice Information Act."

"So why can the Missoulian publish allegations labeling legally innocent people as ‘sexual offenders’ because a couple of disgruntled young adults, who get to remain anonymous, spin a good story to a reporter too lazy to check the facts? Why can a reporter combine sensational facts from different scenarios and weave them together into a fascinating tale of horror and shame? Why can one journalist invoke such fear in the minds of so many, with NOBODY, except an occasional blogger, calling foul? The answer is that reporters answer to no one, except their corporate owners who, by all accounts, need to sell many, many more papers than are currently filling the yellow boxes. Thankfully, most reporters are guided by their own sense of community obligation, truth and justice. But sadly, all of those reporters have moved on."

http://www.pabstlaw.net/Blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I'll cut and paste my response from the other thread.

Reporters should be elected officials? While I understand what she's trying to do, is she really making a case that we need to hold elections for all media personnel? That's about the dumbest GD idea I've ever read. No offense.

Also for the conspiracy theorists out there, I clicked on the CV link and noticed that up until this March, Ms. Pabst was the Chief Deputy in the Missoula County Attorney Office - Criminal Division.
 
wbtfg said:
I'll cut and paste my response from the other thread.

Reporters should be elected officials? While I understand what she's trying to do, is she really making a case that we need to hold elections for all media personnel? That's about the dumbest GD idea I've ever read. No offense.

Also for the conspiracy theorists out there, I clicked on the CV link and noticed that up until this March, Ms. Pabst was the Chief Deputy in the Missoula County Attorney Office - Criminal Division.

Wow...That's about the dumbest GD Cut and Paste I've ever read. No Offense, but did you really think that her intent was that we elect reporters? :roll:
 
Grizpac said:
wbtfg said:
I'll cut and paste my response from the other thread.

Reporters should be elected officials? While I understand what she's trying to do, is she really making a case that we need to hold elections for all media personnel? That's about the dumbest GD idea I've ever read. No offense.

Also for the conspiracy theorists out there, I clicked on the CV link and noticed that up until this March, Ms. Pabst was the Chief Deputy in the Missoula County Attorney Office - Criminal Division.

Wow...That's about the dumbest GD Cut and Paste I've ever read. No Offense, but did you really think that her intent was that we elect reporters? :roll:

I realize its a metaphor, but the metaphor makes no sense.
 
wbtfg said:
Grizpac said:
wbtfg said:
I'll cut and paste my response from the other thread.

Reporters should be elected officials? While I understand what she's trying to do, is she really making a case that we need to hold elections for all media personnel? That's about the dumbest GD idea I've ever read. No offense.

Also for the conspiracy theorists out there, I clicked on the CV link and noticed that up until this March, Ms. Pabst was the Chief Deputy in the Missoula County Attorney Office - Criminal Division.

Wow...That's about the dumbest GD Cut and Paste I've ever read. No Offense, but did you really think that her intent was that we elect reporters? :roll:

I realize its a metaphor, but the metaphor makes no sense.

I think she was saying that reporters should be accountable to someone. If they were elected, they would be accountable to voters.
 
There are certain professions that should be required to take an ethics test every year. Actually it would be nice if everyone could pass an ethics test, but only a few people in society have as much influence as a politician, journalist, lawyer etc.
 
It would seem to me that whether Ms Pabst is right or wrong, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. She is inferring as much if not more than the reporter she is calling out. Problem is one IS an ethics violation and the other is just pure "sensationalism" which can be classed as puffery.
 
Would Ms. Pabst be someone that DOJ would be looking into as part of their investigation?
 
tnt said:
It would seem to me that whether Ms Pabst is right or wrong, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. She is inferring as much if not more than the reporter she is calling out. Problem is one IS an ethics violation and the other is just pure "sensationalism" which can be classed as puffery.

Pabst is a highly regarded and respected lawyer, who has had and would continue to have access to considerable information. Please don't make ridiculous comments like you just did--when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Pabst is absolutely correct in what she said. Many of us in town have been saying the same thing. The Missoulian and Florio have been acting in unethical manner and publishing biased and incorrect information in some situations, in my view and the views of many others. The Missoulian continues to insinuate about old allegations that by now they have to know are not true. I think the Missoulian will eventually get sued over some aspects of what they have done.
 
FCS Go! said:
Would Ms. Pabst be someone that DOJ would be looking into as part of their investigation?

My prediction is that the DOJ will not find a single instance of gender discrimination (against women) in investigating and pursuing sexual assaults. That is the mainly what DOJ is looking for with regard to the county attorneys office. In fact, what they're investigating is whether there was a pattern of gender discrimination.
 
Those damn forefathers and their damn freedom of press. If only there were some check and balance to prevent the press from constantly publishing outright lies.

If there were such a balance, I'm sure Ms. Pabst would have learned that in law school.
 
PlayerRep said:
tnt said:
It would seem to me that whether Ms Pabst is right or wrong, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. She is inferring as much if not more than the reporter she is calling out. Problem is one IS an ethics violation and the other is just pure "sensationalism" which can be classed as puffery.

Pabst is a highly regarded and respected lawyer, who has had and would continue to have access to considerable information. Please don't make ridiculous comments like you just did--when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Pabst is absolutely correct in what she said. Many of us in town have been saying the same thing. The Missoulian and Florio have been acting in unethical manner and publishing biased and incorrect information in some situations, in my view and the views of many others. The Missoulian continues to insinuate about old allegations that by now they have to know are not true. I think the Missoulian will eventually get sued over some aspects of what they have done.
If she "had and has" access to "considerable info" this looks like it could be an ethical violation for her to be talking about an ongoing investigation ...
 
wbtfg said:
Those damn forefathers and their damn freedom of press. If only there were some check and balance to prevent the press from constantly publishing outright lies.

If there were such a balance, I'm sure Ms. Pabst would have learned that in law school.
Yep, we do have freedom of the press. And history had proven repeatedly that the alternative -- a controlled press -- is too dangerous to allow. Thus, "The Press" -- and by extension, the modern media -- has been granted the right to publish anything they think they can get away with. While there are legal standards to establish a case of slander and libel, those are not offenses that require/invoke action by regular law enforcement. If the target of a slanderous or libelous statement does not have the financial resources to pursue a case, there is -- in reality -- no "check" on the power of the press. Unrestrained power is seldom a good thing.

Of course, once upon a time it was generally accepted that rights came with responsibility, a form of restraint on that power. That time is long gone -- "freedom" has become "license" and pretty much "anything goes." So Ms Pabst has an equal right to "call them out," express her desire for responsible adult supervision at the newspaper, and wish for some mechanism to bring them to account.

There is, basically, only one realistic answer to what a person considers irresponsible journalism: Don't "consume" (and therefore pay for) their product, and -- if you feel strongly enough -- refuse to patronize those who do support that product, i.e. the advertisers. Some might call that an indirect form of censorship, and perhaps it is. Yet boycotts are both a legally and historically accepted form of protest, and simply another aspect of our free society. Newspapers cannot survive on subscriber revenue. In fact, many practically give away subscriptions, just to have more "eyeballs" to sell to advertisers. When advertisers stop buying space, that sucks money right out of the bottom line.
 
I've known Kirsten for a long time. She was very aggressive in prosecution of sexual offender cases. She was also aware, with Karen Townsend her predecessor, of the "false" claims that have been made; several involving UM students, some involving athletes.
 
msuhunter said:
PlayerRep said:
tnt said:
It would seem to me that whether Ms Pabst is right or wrong, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. She is inferring as much if not more than the reporter she is calling out. Problem is one IS an ethics violation and the other is just pure "sensationalism" which can be classed as puffery.

Pabst is a highly regarded and respected lawyer, who has had and would continue to have access to considerable information. Please don't make ridiculous comments like you just did--when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Pabst is absolutely correct in what she said. Many of us in town have been saying the same thing. The Missoulian and Florio have been acting in unethical manner and publishing biased and incorrect information in some situations, in my view and the views of many others. The Missoulian continues to insinuate about old allegations that by now they have to know are not true. I think the Missoulian will eventually get sued over some aspects of what they have done.
If she "had and has" access to "considerable info" this looks like it could be an ethical violation for her to be talking about an ongoing investigation ...

Nope, various people in Missoula have access to good information. Nothing unethical there. People directly involved in ongoing investigations may have ethical duties not to disclose information. Pabst isn't a prosecutor anymore and doesn't have a duty to keep information about ongoing information confidential.
 
Ugh... Cat fans just stfu, you look stupid. It's sad that PR, one of the best posters and most intelligent on this board are questioned with idiotic questions. Simply PR is right just stfu and read.
 
Back
Top