Sideshow as headline
The plaintiffs rested their case yesterday in News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy's lawsuit against Knox County Commission. As is routine and ordinary in every trial in the land, the opposing side then immediately submitted a motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. These motions are entirely pro forma, and they're almost never granted, yet for some reason, the above-the-fold headline in today's News Sentinel reads "Motion to toss lawsuit rejected," as if that were some sort of landmark victory for Mr. McElroy's side.
In fact, the attorneys for the opposing side would have been derelict in their professional duties had they not filed such a motion. Without this motion for a directed verdict in the record, they would have basically surrendered any right to appeal. The headline and first half of today's front-page story make it sound like this motion is some kind of unusual maneuver, and that the plaintiffs somehow won something significant when the motion was predictably denied.
The article does mention the routine nature of these motions, but we have to turn all the way back to page A10 before we see this:
Such motions are rarely successful.
And this:
[Chancellor Daryl] Fansler denied the county's motion with little comment.
Of course he did; that's what almost always happens. Yet the story presents this basically trivial event as if it were news.
Meanwhile, the real meat of the day's events isn't even mentioned until the back page of the A section. Testimony by Charles Bolus, one of the commissioners appointed on Black Wednesday, describes his appointment, back-room swearing-in, and seemingly convenient amnesia regarding key events of that day. This should have been the focus of the article and the subject of its headline; although Bolus is mentioned in the article's subheading ("Bolus testifies no one told him to be sworn in early"), and there's a photo of him on the front page, it seems odd to me that the story would focus so heavily in its headline and first half on what amounts to a mere sideshow in the day's events (see this post about Mark Harmon's testimony for another example of a sideshow becoming the headline).
Apparently, the "Na, na! You lost a motion!" angle to the story is more important than the testimony of witnesses.
In addition to Bolus, the court heard testimony from defense witnesses Sherry Witt and Fred Sisk, neither of whose testimony appears to be very damaging to County Commission's case. Their testimony is barely mentioned at the end of the article, but this story from WATE and this one from WBIR elaborate somewhat, providing at least a quote or two. Whether intentional or purely subconscious, the impression left on the reader is that the News Sentinel story emphasizes a trivial matter in its own favor while de-emphasizing the other side of the case.
I also find it interesting that the News Sentinel story doesn't even mention testimony by former Commissioner Diane Jordan, whose son Josh was one of the appointees selected on Black Wednesday. This omission stands out even more starkly when considering the fact that Diane Jordan is the subject of one of the two photographs accompanying the article. She was important enough to include in one of the two photos, but not important enough to mention in the story.
Or maybe it was just her cowboy hat the paper wanted to show.