Letter: LTN crossed the line
To the community,
I teach at STHS but would have the same reaction if that were not the case: it seems beyond unethical and irresponsible to toss in that little reference at the end of the Kushner piece linking this situation even remotely to the Gronwald situation. I’m left wondering why? What does that serve to leave that kind of association to a man by all appearances who is being victimized rather than victimizing?
As an experienced writer, you well know the effect of such associations and should be ashamed of such a tactic. Does it serve any value even bringing up a long-ago-settled matter in the first place? I wonder at the editorializing motive here and consider if worse than unprofessional. Put yourself for a moment in his shoes: somebody levels an attack at you; an article is then written about it with a reference to other prosecuted and convicted journalists in the past? In what way exactly does that make sense or rise to any sort of journalistic standard?
Mike Filce, South Tahoe High School teacher
Mike, as much as a supporter of LTN.net as I am, and hope to continue to be, I completely agree with you. I kinda had that same feeling when I read the article. Personally I felt the article a bit premature, although I was struck how the article was framed in a way that leaned toward the innocence of the STHS faculty member, but making any connection to Karsten Gronwald by virtue of working within the same school district was puzzling at best.
Mike, I know you well and have a great deal of respect for you as not only a teacher in our community, but as a fellow parent, and friend.
Kae, you know that I respect you, and value the service you provide this community. I also believe that you might understand what Mike is saying.
HERE’S YOUR ANSWER – – – Read very carefully as I explain this to you two. When the article was written, it was believed by the writer of the article that the school teacher had been unjustly accused. The writer explained why the evidence against the school teacher was very much in question, and quite probably falsified. But that wasn’t the complete story. The story was also about how much danger this school teacher was put in by this falsified evidence. To show the extreme danger, and the seriousness of the situation, the writer of the article showed by example what could happen to a school teacher who faced this kind of a charge. The example from the past showed how a past teacher was sent to prison over this kind of a charge. The article did not imply that the present situation may result in a prison sentence. The article used this example to show how seriously injured this innocent school teacher could be harmed by the actions of the perpetrator. Without this information some readers may not understand the seriousness of the present situation. Thus, it was very much necessary to place the additional information into the article. The comments following the article were in support of the school teacher. The comments show that the readers understood the content of the article and the seriousness of the situation. In my opinion, the article was very well written.
I have to go with LTN on this one… After reading that article I felt that the teacher was innocent and LTN was only offering context by referencing the other teacher. There was no “guilt by association” implied and it’s common in news articles to give historical context like LTN did.
I also thought it unnecessary to reference the fact that “However, this not the district’s first foray down this path”. It sounds like she is casting doubt about the teacher in this case.
As a member of this community and as someone who was falsely accused.It is sinful that anyone would go to the extent of harming anyone including Mr Kushner and his family. I wouldn’t blame him for hating all those involved (I know I do)and if he does stay he will have my support. For those who go around and lie and spread false rumors young or old, I hope it happens to you and you know who you are.
I agree with you Mike in your letter with the exception of one area. I to felt it inappropriate to mention the previous link to Gronwald case years earlier. However I also found it equally inappropriate for you to use statements shaming Kae in regards to what she expressed in her article. I sincerely hope you as a teacher refrain from shaming your students when they demonstrate inappropriate behavior.
I see nothing wrong here. Freedom of the press.
Very inappropriate comparison. I totally agree! I felt very weird when I read that. It really sounded oddly slanted. Comparing the innocent victim to a guilty molester was a bad choice.
I went back to the comments produced by the readers of the article. My findings are that 3 readers obviously supported the teacher, 3 readers appeared to maintain neutrality. There were two comments that were interested but not expressing any clear opinion. No comments expressed a belief or suspicion that the school teacher is guilty. This supports my earlier belief that the article did not harm the school teacher. If anything, the article enhanced public support for the teacher.
Bravo, Mike! I found the article to be inflammatory and speculative, if not premature. In J-school one is taught that you do not run a story unless you have the facts. LTN only had one comment from the Superintendent, and no other official information, no charges filed, nothing. So she fills up the article with information from an un-involved ‘expert’ which is nothing more than speculation. I would prefer to wait for the official statement from the Police, the District, and the teacher.
Even if you were trying to show the possibility of photoshopping or that someone was framing the teacher. This reads like a gossip column and if anyone was slandering the teacher, it is the LTN.
You people need to go back and read the story again. The story intended to help the school teacher, and the comments that followed demonstrated that it did help the school teacher. One woman commented and concluded that the school teacher had been framed and hoped that the perpetrator would face prosecution.
John M:
I actually wrote my note as a “contact” email and intended it only for the author of the article. Having never posted here before, I didn’t realize that a direct email was akin to a “post”. Had I understood that, I would have framed it differently for the reasons you mentioned.
Mike,
That is so not true. You don’t get to backpedal now.
You sent it on the LTN “contribution form” that is for items to be published.
If you or anyone wants to send me an email, send it to info@LakeTahoeNews.net.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
There’s a difference between “backpedaling” and clarifying. I stand by my initial comments, however I directed them only to you so as not to bring up a topic that is painful to some who might read it by accident.
I sent that note in via your “contact” link, which provides a form that states: “We would love to hear from you! Please fill out this form and we will get in touch with you shortly.” It solicits “comments or concerns” and does NOT indicate a public posting. That was the distinction I was clarifying for John. At any rate, now I know how that contact works.
As I commented before on the article, I received this same photo via text from another parent. Imagine my surprise at seeing this image of my teenage daughter’s teacher. Never once had I considered the possibility that the photo may have been altered. Since no statement has been released by either the school or Mr. Kushner, the LTN article is the only thing speaking in his defense to those of us parents who received it or the hundreds of kids who received it. However, I do think the reference to the Gronwold case was not necessary and could be easily misunderstood.
HA! HA!
Mike.
That’s hilarious. At least we all know the truth. Truth above all else. If it made you look bad, oh well. Only you can fix that problem.