"Hyperbole" reporter here.
First of all, let me say that none of this is the opinion of The Monitor, my employer. It is my personal rebuttal, because I don't like my credibility to be attacked.
Today, I got a call from a Denny Church, (sp?), inquiring about the article I wrote that appeared in Saturday's edition of The Monitor.
He referred me to this website.
I've read your attack on my credentials and have this to say.
According to the golf pro at Tierra Santa, he and fellow golfers have heard the distinctive zinging of bullets going over their heads.
My own co-workers and husband, which of course I did not interview for this article, too, have heard bullets zinging over their heads at this golf course. It was told to me by the golf pro that these bullets came from a range to the north of the course. He never said whether he had found bullets anywhere on the course.
It could be possible that this person was mistaken and doesn't know which direction the sun comes up. According to Lt. Raul Vallejo of the Weslaco Police Department, there is another range west of the course where "uncontolled" shooting goes on. The bullets may have come from there.
The northern range is property of the Weslaco police department; however, I did not know this at the time at I wrote the article.
Vallejo (the firearms instructor) informed me that, yes, you are correct, no complaints have been filed. However, does a formal complaint necessarily need to be filed for an action to have actually happened? I think not.
"Nobody's out there shooting willy nilly," Vallejo said. No citizens are shooting at the range. He told me the range points due west, and yet, the course is to the south. Highly improbable that the bullet came from the police department's range, yes. But could it happen. Sure. Or, like I said, the golf pro didn't know which range the bullets zinged from, or worse yet, he may have lied because he doesn't like guns.
Who knows?
But he said he heard bullets going over his head and it bothers him and his clients. A worthy point to consider when trying to highlight the need for an indoor range.
You obviously missed the point of the article, which was obvious by the headline, "Targeting a need."
Law enforcement officers would like an indoor range to shoot at. People, or at least golfers, would prefer if law enforcement and anybody who shoots go inside and do it. This new shooting range is obviously wanted by some. (If you still want to shoot outside, fine.)
This account of one golfer's ire was merely a way of illustrating that. And the "bang, bang...bang, bang, bang!" was a way of putting the reader in a golfer's shoes. An "overanalyzing" golfer at that.
Don't point out bias where it does not exist.
You simply chose to read my article a certain way. I'm sure others got the point.
Just so you know, my husband owns a gun. I like guns. I have two shotgun shells and a bullet casing sitting on my desk, from the times I shot with law enforcement. (I've gone through McAllen Police Citizen's Academy and the Border Patrol Citizen's Academy)
I also recently went skeet shooting for the first time and blasted that clay right out of the sky on my first try. What a feeling!
So, no, this was not some liberal media attack on the right to bear arms. This article simply pointed out the need for another indoor shooting range in Hidalgo County. Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
Cari Hammerstrom
Thursday, July 14, 2005
"Canons of Journalism" Rebuttal
Cari Hammerstrom Speaks Out
Hey, Cari! Ya gotta HAVE credibility before we can attack it!
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of journalism is to post the facts, not illustrate a point. And especially not a point based on hearsay and lack of investigation.
ReplyDeleteNice try Cari, no cigar. I don't care if you were trying to help the cops by shaking loose some money with your false "illustration of a point". If a journalist doesn't stick to facts, it isn't news. It is biased, all opinion is.
I love the whole 'you chose to read my article in a certain way'
ReplyDeleteTranslation, I apparently can't convey exactly what i meant. Must be your fault.
-SayUncle
Ms. Hammerstrom, I am tempted to "fisk" your response, but you just about do it to yourself.
ReplyDeleteOne line of questions--if the proprietors of the golf course truly believe bullets are zinging overhead how can they in good conscience keep the course open and endanger their clientele?
Would their insurance company allow them to continue operations if it knew? Would they like for me to call their insurer and ask?
Would they'd rather put everyone at risk than lose money?
And what about their obligation to the public? They "know" potentially lethal and illegal activity is occurring and endangering lives and property, yet they don't report it?
If that's true, it kind of speaks poorly for their business ethics, don't you think?
I guess I forgot to mention that Vallejo told me Weslaco PD is trying to relocate its range to appease the people at the golf course.
ReplyDeleteFunny, first the PD has had no complaints, but then they are trying to move because of "hearsay."
And straightarrow, in journalism in this country, reporters write the facts and get all angles of the story. However, each story has a thesis. The thesis of this story was: "a new shooting range is being built. It will allow law enforcement to qualify annually at an indoor range instead of an outdoor range."
Now to support the thesis, or "point", there were many reasons offered up why an officer could want to qualify inside. Reasons were also offered up as to why other people may want officers to qualify inside. One was that some people are annoyed by ricocheting bullets. Not hearsay: the golf pro heard it, my husband has heard it, my own boss has heard it.
The investigation of the shooting range is a seperate story entirely. So hence, I say you all missed the point of the article.
Perhaps I will follow up in the future with a full blown investigation as to why bullets are going over golfers heads. Then, I will make sure to get the police range's side of the story.
But, regarding this article, I did my job beautifully because I peaked your interest and you read my article.
Perhaps if you had read, "A new shooting range is coming to Hidalgo County this fall," you may have said, well, this writer is boring and turned the page.
I stuck to facts. I presented them objectively, getting all sides of the story at hand. I spoke with the new shooting range and its competition and compared the two.
A side note: Facts come from other places aside from a governmental body. (if you rely only on the government for the truth, I feel incredibly sad for you all). All "facts" do not need to be documented on paper either. For example, in another story I'm working on, people in the colonias claim they were victims of crime; however, for numerous reasons (mainly gang retaliation), they chose not to report it to the police. Does this make their story less worthy because I can't prove it with cold hard evidence? No. A journalist listens to the community, gathers all types of information, asks the appropriate questions and informs the public of what is going on around them.
And with this range story, not every story is an investigative piece.
You make good points Mr. Cordrea. If I do that follow up story on bullets flying over the golf course, I will certainly ask these pertinent questions.
Oh, almost forgot.... two more things. "r.j." and "straightarrow", It's Mrs. Hammerstrom. Only friends my call me Cari.
And before you say I have no credibility, read every single article I have ever written. What a cheap shot.
Oh, and please guys, stop bothering Weslaco PD for your blog. They have more important things to do.
That's all for me, for good, because i don't have time to talk to people who don't like to listen. I'm off to work now.
I must have missed her explanation for the sloppy journalism. She did tell us how she gathered her facts but not why she felt they would be more valid than actual facts gathered through actual investigative effort.
ReplyDeleteIt also amazes me how some people feel the need to mention that they operated a firearm once to convince us that they are not, what they would term as anti-gun. I prefer to judge by what a person says and does every day. After all, I am sure that Police Chief Carpenter (Wilmette, IL) and Police Superintendent Cline (Chicago) have both operated firearms. Nevertheless, these two characters would lock you up in a heartbeat for possessing a handgun in violation of their respective community's ordinances. These ordinances forbid you from owning one in your own home. They have also spoken out publicly against private handgun ownership. I have a personal email in my archives where Chief Carpenter repeated his absurd claim to me that being barricaded in my own room while unarmed and dialing 911 is better than being barricaded with a handgun. Sorry, Ms. Hammerstrom ... operating a firearm doesn't make you pro-rights in my book.
*****
I was in the middle of typing this up. I hit the preview button and noticed her reply. I suppose she will not be reading my post. Oh well. She said "before you say I have no credibility, read every single article I have ever written." Nobody has to read everything you've ever written. You only have to lie, steal or cheat once to be known as a liar, thief or a cheat. Likewise, you only have to mess up one story to be discredited. If you would Rather go with the argument that I didn't have the facts but this is what they would be if I did have them, well ... go ahead.
By the way, your original article never made any mention of ricochets. There is a world of difference between ricochets and repeated, intentional, direct fire. I wonder how someone who's primary occupation is so dependent on language and the written word could overlook this critical choice in wording?
Mrs. Hammerstrom,
ReplyDeleteI called yesterday and talked to you about the story you wrote.
I told you then that the story made me think that it was dangerous to golf there after reading the third paragraph.
You said not at all and that is when I told you that the range was the Weslaco Police's.
You told me you did not know when you wrote the story. How come? The fact that it is a cops range was not important?
The golfers are afraid of the noise, just like you are when you run past the Mission Police Department Range, which you also said to me yesterday.
I told you that the range had good back stop, when I had shot there, and unless you went running on top, you didn't have to worry.
You said many people are afraid of the noise and the new range should be a good thing- I agreed, but you told your story from the start with fear.
I said yesterday, I fear getting hit by golf balls like I have in the past from ranges, and you did not seem to like that point.
And you did not get the facts straight at all- ask Ray Pegoda again how many cops shoot there, and this time tell the truth. You could also ask the man who owns the second indoor range in the valley- American Firing range in Brownsville.
You wrote a story to scare people in to wanting the new range. Not because it is good for the valley.