|
It is a wonderful thing to be recognized
for excellence, especially by your peers in a small community, and
the Auburn Chamber of Commerce’s annual “State of the
Community” dinner is always highly anticipated because of
the raft of awards lavished on deserving citizens, both in the private
and public sectors. The most coveted award, though, is being honored
as “Business of the Year.”
For 2007, the recipient at the April 27 gala was the Auburn Journal,
the community’s daily newspaper that has served the region
since 1872 when a predecessor title was launched. In his monthly
column in the “Small Street Journal,” newsletter, Chamber
CEO Bruce Cosgrove, lauded the winner: “The Auburn Journal
received this distinctive recognition for their business success
and significant contributions to the community of Auburn.”
He added, “The newspaper is vital to the success of local
business through marketing and advertising.”
Editor/General Manager Deric Rothe and Publisher Tony Hazarian,
clutching a copy of the newspaper in front of a press, beamed in
an accompanying photo. As the two key managers of the publication,
they alone are ultimately responsible for the editorial direction,
tone and content that appears six days per week. And from a business
perspective, they have much of which to be proud. The newspaper
is a local business booster, dutifully covering every Chamber event
and supporting many civic programs with pro-bono advertising space.
Every new spa or restaurant opening gets an initial pop in the business
section of the paper, whose publisher is also a Chamber director.
Reading deeper into Cosgrove’s column, however, I parted ways
with him when he gushed, “The Chamber acknowledged in presenting
the award, that what makes the Auburn Journal stand out as the Business
of the Year for 2007, ‘is their untiring commitment to telling
the Auburn story.’”
Hardly. The Auburn Journal’s ongoing coverage of this community
can be charitably described as abridged and myopic. A more direct
criticism is the paper fails miserably in its role as a watchdog
of local and county governments, abandoning a traditional adversarial,
arms-length role in favor of that of a consummate cheerleader and
team player. Day in and day out, the Auburn Journal covers this
community only at its surface, taking on the easy stories, the ones
that emerge reliably at the Auburn Police Department or the Placer
County Courthouse or the fires and traffic accidents reported on
emergency scanners. It can be counted on to cover the first day
of summer, the Tevis Cup and City Council meetings. But when it
comes to digging deep into the community to investigate alleged
public abuses; or researching major stories in depth; or going off
the beaten path to discover what is unique about Auburn; or presenting
the Auburn Journal’s positions on serious issues facing this
community and the nation, the paper consistently comes up woefully
short. It’s management carefully avoids taking risks, and
it is simply missing in action when it comes to legitimate analysis
and commentary.
To illustrate how the Auburn Journal has failed to accurately tell
this community’s story, this report will show how the newspaper
mismanaged coverage of four important news events over the past
year. Here’s Part 1.
On his way to work as IT Director of the City of Auburn on the morning
of May 24, 2006, Ernest Shih was ambushed in the parking lot of
City Hall by officers of the Placer County Sheriff along with a
reporter and photographer from the Auburn Journal—tipped to
the imminent arrest by an unconfirmed public official. The next
morning, the story was splashed on page one: “City’s
top computer expert busted.” And there was Ernest Shih, 42,
in a front page photo, head bowed while a trio of undercover officers
snapped on the bracelets.
Breaking this exclusive for the Auburn Journal was Jim Ruffalo,
who writes two weekly Auburn “insider” columns for the
newspaper. Reporter Penne Usher covers the Police Beat for the Journal,
so it is unlikely that the tip came from any law enforcement agency.
Ruffalo is firmly wired into City Hall, however, and although the
City Council was aware of the impending arrest, it is more likely
that the reporter was given a head’s up by his regular contact
within the halls of the building. Auburn’s weekly newspaper,
The Sentinel, was not invited to the party.
A veritable task force of law enforcement agencies cooperated in
the criminal investigation, rivaling the resources one would expect
to be marshaled against a mobster like John Gotti—the FBI,
the Department of Justice and local organizations—the Placer
County Sheriff, the Placer County District Attorney, and of course,
the Auburn Police Department. Remarkably, in the midst all of this
law-enforcement talent, Auburn Police Chief Valerie Harris was out
of town at the time of Shih’s arrest, as was his direct supervisor,
Director of Development, Will Wong.
Over the next month, the Auburn Journal embarked on a feeding frenzy
with this juicy case, regularly updating court appearances and the
potential implications of a city’s computer networks placed
at risk by the criminal activities of an employee in a position
of trust. Through reporter innuendo, constant recitation of the
charges against Shih and repeatedly running his jailhouse photo,
the Auburn Journal all but convicted this mild-mannered computer
geek before he had his day in court.
It’s hard to imagine a more unlikely candidate to be accused
of so many crimes. Shih, quiet, hardworking and a family man, was
a two-year employee of the city which quickly recognized his contribution
to the staff by naming him “Employee of the Year.” He
was also a reserve member of the Auburn Police Department. Not the
kind of professional you would expect to see wearing an orange jump
suit.
Ruffalo’s piece reported that Shih was “charged with
suspicion of embezzlement,” and bond was set at a staggering
$250,000. On May 26th, Penne Usher took over the story, reporting
in “City’s Theft Probe Widens,” that Shih was
suspected of bugging City offices to monitor conversations and planting
wireless cameras in the building. Her report also raised concerns
that Shih may have had access to computers that control the city’s
wastewater systems and the airport.
On May 28th, Shih walked out of jail when his bail was suddenly
slashed to only $10,000 by Judge Larry Gadis. Usher’s report
failed to mention any reasons why such a precipitous reduction had
been order by the court. She did put her own spin on Shih by selectively
quoting one of Shih’s neighbors: “I talked to him one
day and he seemed really nice. Seems like everybody has something
in their past. I’d still talk to him, though.” So much
for the notion of an objective news organization.
Reporter Michelle Miller picked up the thread on May 31st with this
headline: “City’s systems secure? Officials test network
after Ernest Shih’s arrest.” Although the headline is
provocative, the story reports all is well, though no dollar amount
is ever placed on the City’s actual losses due to Shih’s
alleged malfeasance. Councilman Keith Nesbitt, however, noted in
the story: "It appears the losses are minimal, but we'll have
to see how it all plays out," he said. "City staff are
back at work and we're moving ahead. The public is understandably
curious, but from what I've seen, they trust us to handle this."
Not so fast, Keith.
On June 1, the full menu of charges against Shih were outlined in
court and in the Auburn Journal: “grand theft, grand theft
false pretense and possession of a weapon in a public building.”
The story does not elaborate on what was stolen—computers,
money or paper clips. It pointed out that while his status as a
reserve police office enabled Shih to carry a weapon, it did so
only while he was on duty.
“New evidence prompts more charges for Shih,” admonished
a headline on June 27. The Usher-penned piece dutifully reported
that an additional charge of embezzlement had been placed by the
DA, but there was not a word written about any specific evidence.
Usher repeated all of the charges and Shih’s mug shot ran
with the piece.
And then the Auburn Journal fell silent.
Exactly eight months later, on February 27, 2007, the Journal ran
an Usher piece titled, “City pays employees not to work,”
a headline with a truly mangled interpretation of the facts. The
story began with a report about Georgiana Lohman, a 20-year City
employee who worked as an animal control officer. Lohman, who would
typically try to find the owners of wayward pets rather than take
them directly to the pound—a violation of policy—had
been on paid administrative leave for 10 months while her case was
under investigation. She was ultimately returned to work in another
capacity.
Buried 22 paragraphs into the piece, “master-criminal”
Ernest Shih is mentioned in the Auburn Journal for the first time
in eight months. Turns out he has been on paid leave since the day
he was arrested, a fact never previously revealed by the Auburn
Journal. (Go to the story with a ton of reader comment at: www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2007/02/28/news/top_stories/02city28.txt?pg=1.)
Five paragraphs in the piece touch on the case of Shih, whom the
Auburn Journal has reported earns in the realm of $80,000 annually,
plus benefits.
Remarkably, Usher puts her own spin on the story with this comment:
“Although some may believe it’s great to get paid and
not work, others in town aren’t so sure.” Then she quotes
a random person saying: “"That just doesn't make sense
to me. Why bother to pay someone who isn't working? If they did
do something wrong - let them go."
In March Shih made two court appearances and his case was continued
both times.
Then, on April 3, the headline: “Charges against Shih dropped,”
with an Usher piece accompanied by a portrait of Ernest Shih, this
time dressed in his reserve police officer’s uniform. Placer
County Prosecutor Jim Wilson was quoted in the Journal saying, “It’s
not in the interest of justice to pursue (the weapons charge); it
would be in the best interest to dismiss the three remaining counts.
(Go to the story at: www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/top_stories/01shih3.txt.)
What might happen next in this saga is decidedly unclear because
the reportage was unintelligible in this final installment in the
Auburn Journal. Apparently, Shih has the option to take action against
his employer—the City—but the potential charges were
never illuminated in the piece. On the flip side, the city may take
future “personnel action” against Shih now that the
criminal charges have been dropped.
Criminal charges against Shih were dropped two months ago, and not
a single line has been printed in the Auburn Journal in follow up.
Based on the significant lapses in the newspaper’s coverage
of this story, don’t expect a news flash any time soon.
Ernest Shih might be guilty as hell of something, but we’ll
never know because his case was mismanaged from the beginning. If
Shih did pad his expense report or commit some equally stupid but
insignificant act, the true financial impact on the City of Auburn
couldn’t be more than a few thousand dollars. If you accept
that, you have to wonder why city officials just didn’t handle
the problem administratively, rather than grandstand with such a
public and ultimately expensive display.
A reasonable person must look at Ernest Shih as an innocent man
because he has been proven guilty of absolutely nothing. . .no matter
what the truth may reveal. What’s certain, however, thanks
to the humiliating treatment by the Auburn Journal and the classic
bungling by the City, is his reputation is tainted irreparably,
and his career opportunities and the security of his family are
damaged for all time.
What is most significant in this melodrama is two institutions a
community trusts implicitly both failed miserably. Officials of
the City of Auburn squandered precious resources of time, talent
and public dollars; the Auburn Journal failed to maintain objectivity
and diligence in its ongoing coverage of this story. Perhaps it
was laziness or lack of skill, but at the end of the day, the Journal
failed to ask the right questions at the right times. It was far
too cozy with its sources, and no one in management kept their eye
on the ball of this story.
In the final analysis many tough questions linger, and the people
of this community should demand answers. . .answers that the Auburn
Journal—fulfilling its most basic obligation as a news-gathering
organization--should seek to uncover:
--First and foremost, what happened to Ernest Shih? Does
he plan to sue the City of Auburn or has he already settled out
of court? What are his damages? Is he still on paid administrative
leave? If not, when were payments terminated, and what was the total
amount paid to him from the City? Has he been reemployed elsewhere?
After living in the hell of a legal limbo for more than a year,
what has been the toll on him personally?
--From a legal perspective, of what actual crimes was Shih
accused? No details about alleged criminal acts were ever
revealed. What was the total potential dollar impact on the city?
What evidence was developed, and why wasn’t it enough to support
the charges brought against Shih?
--How much did all of this nonsense cost the taxpayers of Auburn?
This was an expensive exercise if you consider the cost of continuing
to pay Shih and any staff who may have replaced him; the cost of
the investigation; legal and court costs; costs of consultants and
staff to analyze all of the City’s computer systems for security
breaches; and the lost time and lost productivity of all involved.
. .not to mention the ultimate cost to the City of settling with
Shih or prosecuting (or should we say persecuting) him in the future.
The full loss could easily amount to a quarter of a million dollars,
the precise level of the City of Auburn’s expected budget
shortfall for 2008 (according to a recent comment by a City Council
published in the Auburn Journal).
--A man’s reputation has been smeared, his life ruined.
Who should pay? This is a serious issue, and one that simply
should not be ignored. Someone in City Hall initiated and drove
the charges against Shih. That person failed, and there are attendant
consequences to be satisfied. All too often, City officials hide
behind the veil of “privacy” in personnel matters, in
the way the Federal government uses “national security”
as a convenient shield. The Auburn Journal should get its lawyers
to file actions under the Freedom of Information Act to dig into
what is happening in the former grammar school on Lincoln Way.
--Who leaked the story to the press, enabling Auburn Journal reporters
to be on hand for the arrest? Such grandstanding behavior
is unacceptable and violates the public trust and the rights of
the accused.
--Who is accountable at the Auburn Journal? The
story of Ernest Shih was horrifically mismanaged by the Auburn Journal
from the moment Jim Ruffalo got an instant rush from recognizing
that he had been handed a blockbuster exclusive. It is clear, based
on the frequency of repeating the charges against Shih and the frequency
of his jailhouse photo appearing in the paper that there was a presumption
of his guilt. This was compounded by the bias exhibited in the coverage
through publishing opinions from people who had no specific knowledge
of the issues or the case. Finally the eight-month lapse in reportage,
coupled with absolutely no effort invested in follow-up on this
story are reprehensible.
Someone is responsible for this shoddy journalism, someone must
pay, and I’m convinced it is the two gentlemen who so eagerly
accepted the “Business of the Year” accolades from the
Auburn Chamber of Commerce. What’s good for business, unfortunately,
can be lousy for journalism, and Messrs. Rothe and Hazarian have
demonstrated this fact all too clearly.
Ernest Shih may have committed crimes against the City of Auburn,
I don’t know. But he is entitled to due process, and thank
God that came to pass. . .even without the aid of Auburn’s
Fourth Estate.
Look for Part 2 of this report next week, examining three other
stories covered in the Auburn Journal.
The last word is yours. Write to me with the knowledge
that I may run your letter in a future column, but I never identify
any of my correspondents. Email me at gamoffat@pacbell.net.
All nice, polite notes (no profanity) get answers.
* * *
|
