The Canons of Journalism

An Open Letter to Cari Hammerstrom

Dear Ms. Hammerstrom,

Your paper's website doesn't include an email address for you, so I'm sending this to its editorial department to forward to you, as well as for their cognizance.

I'm writing in response to your July 9 story in The Monitor titled "TARGETING A NEED" because it makes some remarkable, and frankly, unbelievable claims.

You say golfers at Tierra Santa golf course in Weslaco are subjected to "bullets zinging overhead," and give credence to the assertion that "residents living nearby would probably appreciate if the bullets could go somewhere else."

Is this true? Is a gun range operated so dangerously and incompetently that the public is exposed to potentially lethal gunfire, and no one is doing anything to stop it? How could a fair reading of your carefully chosen and edited words conclude otherwise?

That seems to be quite a story you have stumbled on to. It's baffling why your biggest concern seems to be some golfers' games being off at the 6th hole due to noise.

Questions I would be interested in seeing you follow up on:

How much expended ammunition has been recovered off the gun range property?

Have any homes or other property been hit?

With "bullets zinging overhead," have police reports been made?

What do the police have to say about such obviously hazardous conditions endangering lives and property?

Has anyone appealed to a court to shut the range down? If not, why not?

Or, Ms. Hammerstrom, is it more likely that this is not a straight news story at all, but intentional hyperbole designed to shape public attitudes by implying a danger that does not exist?

If that's the case, do you think you are rigorously upholding the canons of journalism, or have you given that up and embraced the role of an agenda-driven propagandist?

Let me save you the time of doing further research, Ms. Hammerstrom--I have done it for you, from my armchair in Southern California, and it took me a matter of mere minutes.

Since your story was datelined in Edinburg, I called their police department. The lady I spoke with had heard nothing about "bullets zinging overhead" at a local golf course, but said I would need to check with the Weslaco police and gave me their number. I called there and spoke to another lady in charge of records and asked her if there was anyone I could speak with on the record about the matter. She gave me the name of her lieutenant and took down my number for him to get back to me. She also volunteered that if something like that had happened, she thought she would have heard about it--and hadn't.

A few hours later, I got a return call from Lt. Raul Vallejo, who informed me that when he heard about my inquiry, he personally went out to the area to see if he could find anything out about it. I explained who I was and why I was checking out your claims and his for the record response was:

"I have not received complaints of that nature and would fully investigate anything that was brought before me like that."

Lt. Vallejo seemed like a real and genuine person, easy to talk with, and honest and forthright in his answers. You would have enjoyed speaking with him, Ms. Hammerstrom, assuming you were interested in giving your assertions a reality check.

Isn't it curious that a professional reporter, backed by the resources of a professional newsgathering organization, would make such outrageous and misleading claims and present them to the public as factual? Especially when divining the truth of the matter is almost effortless, assuming that is what one seeks? Do you attribute your false claims to carelessness, Ms. Hammerstrom, or to something more deliberate?

To your editors, I would ask if this is representative of the quality of reporting we can expect from The Monitor and its sister publications at Freedom Communications, Inc.?

In any event, I'll be monitoring The Monitor, Ms. Hammerstrom, as well as sister publications where your story has appeared, to see if a deserved correction to their readers is forthcoming. And while I hold no illusions about professional sanctions for work that can only be described as either negligent or deceptive, perhaps this will give your editors pause to scrutinize your submissions a little more closely in the future.