Now this is more like it
So far, I've had some fairly critical things to say about the News Sentinel's objectivity in its coverage of Editor Jack McElroy's lawsuit against Knox County Commission.
Believe it or not, I have some complimentary things to say about the coverage in today's paper.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
But first, I have a minor point of criticism on the article in today's paper.
This article, which begins at the bottom of page A1 in today's paper, starts off with a small jab at Knox County Law Director John Owings, who is representing County Commission; the first sentence of the article describes him as "beleaguered," even though the trial hasn't technically started yet. He (quite rightly, in my opinion) expressed concerns over the neutrality of the jury pool and questioned whether his clients could receive a fair trial. That hardly seems the actions of an attorney who is "beleaguered;" rather, he's merely raising the same point any other attorney would raise (see this WBIR story for comparison).
This is how the article opens:
Forgive Knox County Law Director John Owings if he's feeling a bit beleaguered.
After all, he walked into this Knox County Chancery courtroom Tuesday facing a jury pool already suspicious, if not outright condemning, of his clients -- Knox County Commission members accused of violating the Tennessee Open Meetings Act.
"I don't know how in the world my clients get a fair shake," Owings complained Tuesday as he sought to have Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler kick off a groupof [sic] potential jurors who admitted negative thoughts about commissioners and their handling of the process to appoint term-limited officeholders.
"It seems to me I'm not on a level playing field," Owings said.
There's that negative word "complained" again, instead of something more neutral like "argued." As the trial progresses, I'll be curious to see if the News Sentinel describes their editor's attorney, Richard Hollow, as "fretting" or "complaining" about the course of events.
After that opening section, however, the article improves significantly, mainly by just sticking to the facts. The rest of the article avoids loaded words, uses direct quotes from attorneys on both sides, and presents the facts of the day in a straightforward and apparently objective way. That's certainly refreshing. It details the exclusion of several prospective jurors in yesterday's "legal tango" before Chancellor Fansler, due to the conclusion that they had already formed indelible opinions in the case, and it does so without passing judgment on whether their exclusion was proper. That's the way the story should be reported, in my opinion.
Unlike yesterday's article, this one makes it clear that the prospective jurors who expressed firm opinions all came down against County Commission. The bulk of today's article reads more like a news story should: it's clear, sticks to the facts, and avoids loaded terms (with the exceptions noted above).
Let's hope that's the beginning of a trend.