|
|
|
 |
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scapegoat or anecdote? |
|
| The News & Observer |
|
| Tue, April 03, 2007 |
|
Did the Raleigh newspaper mistreat a lawyer when it questioned how much he was paid as a court-appointed guardian for people who could not handle their own financial affairs? That’s the complaint that Ted Vaden, the N&O's public editor (aka ombudsman), tackled in this column (found via Romenesko). Vaden sides with Thomas Goldsmith, a reporter on the paper’s generations beat (aka aging). I agree with Vaden’s verdict — and with one critical suggestion that would have made the story better — but Vaden and Goldsmith missed one angle that cries out for examination.
The story that drew flak from the legal community ran on the front page of the Sunday, March 25, paper. Goldsmith spent months reporting and examining public records to conclude that Wake County courts paid one Raleigh lawyer serving as a guardian, Robert Monroe, nearly $3.4 million since 1991 — an average of more than $300,000 annually, paid from the bank accounts of the people he’s appointed to protect. Monroe routinely billed the maximum, and the courts paid it, contrary to the practice in nearby counties, Goldsmith wrote. The story portrays the system as potentially flawed, but does not accuse Monroe of illegal or unethical conduct. Monroe gets his say in the story. Monroe’s friends, however, complained to the N&O that Monroe was made a scapegoat, painted in a negative light unfairly.
Vaden disagrees, writing:
Monroe may be an outstanding person privately and an upstanding community citizen. But the fact is, he is a poster child for what's wrong with the legal guardianship problem. A story examining the issue in Wake County could not have been done without focusing on Monroe's success in earning a handsome living from a flawed system -- even though, as the story pointed out, he operated within the system.
That all makes sense to me, as does Vaden’s suggestion that the story could have given more detail on the work Monroe and his staff performed to earn the fees. But what’s lacking — and what opens the story to scapegoating claims — is a lack of perspective. Goldsmith never tells readers whether Monroe is the top recipient of guardian fees. He mentions briefly that other lawyers take appointments, so evidently Monroe is not the exclusive appointee. It’s reasonable to assume that Goldsmith singled out Monroe because Monroe is the leader, so why not spell that out and compare his fees to others’?
Poor Goldsmith. He has critics carping from all sides. The core of his report looks solid, and it’s the sort of valuable public affairs reporting that isn’t done nearly enough. Lawyers earn court-appointed fees for all sorts of work, and it’s the responsibility of government and courts reporters to police those systems — as they have been known to spin wildly out of control. When you take on those systems, you just have to be ready for the flak.
|
|
Posted at 09:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 0 comments to this post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
