Troublemaker claims RMA has different practices for polygraphing cops and polygraphing City Council members.  "One way was for the hunted. One way was for the nice council people."

More: "The three police officers that took the RMA lie detector test were not provided a nice quiet non stressful environment. There were no practice questions. The officers were interrogated for hours and then told they were immediately taking a lie detector test. Immediately after they were interrogated their nerves were shot. They were tired. RMA did not show any concern for that."

Comments

[Joe Killian]

Not that it's impossible this is true but...sources? Attribution? Citation? Quotes?

Call me an old fashioned, main-stream-media type, but I like to know where information on accusations like this is coming from when I read it. Helps me decide if it's valid. There are so many accusations in that one long graph from Troublemaker I lost count...but I don't see any links, attribution, quotes, sources...even the anonymous and sort of shady kind. It's entirely possible they have them. If so it's worth printing it.

Maybe it's enough on a blog to say you "know" something and "of course" it's true - asking how people don't understand and accept it. I'd like to think it's not enough on a good blog. Either way I think it has to be acknowledged that there are standards of verification and codes of ethics that have to be observed at good newspapers and I'm not sure we want to get to a place where we're criticizing reporters for not simply printing rumors and things they can't (or don't) verify. Am I alone here?

[Roch101]

No, Joe, you are not alone. The Troublemaker is an interesting read and I admire his attempts to get ahead of the curve on local news, but he'd be a hundred times more credible if he'd follow your good advice. I'd offer the Troublemaker the following suggestions:

1) Don't ask us to just take your word for it. When you say you "know" something, give us some insight into how you know it. Saying that something is "heavily rumored" instead of just rumored doesn't make it any more believable.

2) When providing documentation, don't just provide an image of the paragraph that supports your conentions. If you trouble yourself enough to post an excerpt, you can post the entire thing so that we can see the context and other relevant information.

3) Don't personalize. The little jabs, calling people part of a "tribe", "pretend chief" and the other sarcastic characterizations of people are just not necessary. They seem petty and detract from whatever other factual information you may want us to know.

4) Use caution with the passive voice: "A council member was told," "The officer was told," "It was revealed to the Troublemaker," "The document was made," etc. This becomes a technique for you to avoid identifying the subject. Who told the council member? Who told the offcier? Who told the Troublemaker? Who made the document?

5) "It has been reported." If this is what you mean, tell us where it was reported. If what you mean is "someone told me" then say that instead.

6) Cite quotations. When you quote somebody, cite the source in which the quote appears or, if you heard it first-hand, say so.

7) Don't ignore your commenters. Leaving a question unanswered looks like you have no respect for your readers. If you don't have an answer, say so.

[Ed Cone]

I agree with the comments above.

However, the claim excerpted in my post might be viewed less a fully-formed news report, and more as what the old-timers called a tip.

It would seem worth checking out by someone who cites sources, etc.

Joe, do you know any newspaper reporters who might be interested?

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, Ben Holder's points have not even remotely been proved; but they are certainly plausible. That is significant. It is very easy to visualize the events unfolding as he described.

[Ed Cone]

Exactly, Joe G.

Now that a blog tipster has brought them to the public's attention, the next step in the new media foodchain is for a professional reporter to check out the story, applying the rigor and procedures of professional journalism.

[ben holder]

roch admires my attempts..attempt kinda makes it seem like i tried and failed..i have scooped and brought news to the table lots..sorry u cant see it.

[Ed Cone]

Could Ben continue to improve his site in this way or that?

Sure, we all could.

I'm not sure that's the point here.

As it is, he's running it as a tip sheet.

It's an important part of the local media ecosphere. But it's not set up as a definitive reporting vehicle.

That's where the traditional press comes in.

Yes, Ben does like to say you know it's true if you read it at his place. That's his style. Dude is posing with what looks like a WWF belt in his photo, take a hint.

The value lies in the information he provides.

If this story proves out, his stock goes up.

And the next story offered without sourcing or adequate documentation will still need to be fully checked out...but the urgency of doing so will be higher.

[Joe Killian]

Eric Swensen is on this in the office. I'm sure if Troublemaker or whoever it is that's given him the information he has but isn't citing were to give him a call (and could prove any of it) he'd listen.

But tearing into N&R reporters because they can't (and shouldn't) print the sort of rumor and innuendo he's into (as he did in the referenced post and has repeatedly in others) hardly seems kosher.

I'm not suggesting he should run his blog like a newspaper (though he'd certainly be more credible if he took some of Roch's suggestions) - I'm just saying he shouldn't bust on reporters for not treating newspapers like blogs.

[Ed Cone]

I agree that the shotgun-style criticism is counterproductive.

I hope Eric can get past it and maybe drop Ben an email to get the conversation started.

[ben holder]

i guess past heavily reported rumors becoming big news in main media doesnt show anything..i said small leaked it weeks b 4 anyone else. the list goes on and on. Many stories have panned out dating back to rick balla nd the gtrc, asbestos, wray, brady, etc...doesnt seem like stock has gone up though.

[ben holder]

That is the NWA Television Championship Belt by the way.

[jsykes]

Joe, Joe, Joe.

How many times have you read All the President's Men? If none, read it. Several times.

You should know that people with information in a critical house of cards don't just talk up front to people who want attribution.

Ben's work has been the best on the scene on several issues and I don't think his "credibility" needs to be judged by any of us until we quantify his uncorrected errors across the body of his work.

Also, his blog's comments alone provide a voice for people to say what's on their mind without fear of retribution.

FWIW, Joe, I'd like to see your logic applied to the GNR when it comes to publicly acknowledging the names of employees fired for plagiarism, instead of printing a vague correction below the fold on a section that only circulates in less than 10 percent of your readership, especially when the plagiarism occurred online and was printed online. But that's just me.