if you are so smart then why are you not a reporter?

Anna, if you knew how much reporters actually make, you'd have been smart enough not to have asked that question.

Mr. Berg, as an example of revising (editing) an article to clarify points within it, your piece is extremely bad work. The main points of the article were the expungement, Fine’s (unstated) rationale for the delay in the expungement (if the arrest was an emotional issue, why the long delay?), and the readily inferred link between the expungement and his political ambitions. The “he said, she said” material provided background on the arrest related to the expungement.

The material about Fine having primary custody and Wexler’s apparent problems with managing anger can only be deemed important to someone who thought the article’s primary purpose was to make Fine look good. Your changes would make the article more about Fine’s marital problems and Wexler’s emotional problems than politics; those problems might be of interest to Fine’s and Wexler’s friends, but would be irrelevant to anyone interested only in Fine the politician. For depth re Wexler’s emotional states of mind, the article would have needed quotes from professionals and Wexler’s associates, versus quotes from Fine, excerpts from court proceedings, etc.

In short, you apparently wanted a different article. If you want a complimentary profile of Fine, you could do one yourself, but I doubt you’d be able to sell it to any commercial publication. The tone that Fine took in calling for a retraction of the Star Tribune article could make the profile difficult, though. Wexler isn’t the only one with anger management problems, apparently.

Note that I worked for Sprint Corp. for nine-plus years, abstracting newspaper articles and editing the abstracts for use in an in-house newsletter.

SRS

"The Star Tribune has received rumors indicating that Mr. Fine has had an arrest -- not a conviction -- expunged. We do not print such stories, as if such an expungement existed, revealing it would defeat the purpose and legal action of the expungement."

Of course, then they have a big hole to fill.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/expgrecs.pdf

I fail to see how this is a story about the expungement.

If he didn’t get his record expunged until he was interested in political advancement, so what? Unless their was something improper about the process, which was not in the story, who cares?

The important question raised is whether Fine was a wife beater. The story seems to reduce allegations by Wexler and her father, refuted by Fine, with no criminal resolution.

It is not really difficult to conclude that the Strib was offended that Fine had taken a politically incorrect position on Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam and CAIR and chose to publish a prominent story implying that he may be a wife beater to even the playing field in their mind.

Anna said,

"if you are so smart then why are you not a reporter?"

Simple. There are no openings at the Enquirer.

WTF? Didn't SRS make the exact same comment in an earlier post? Is he a comment bot?

SRS, Doug et al,

Do not leave another comment of any sort without answering this question:

"Why would the Strib leave out Alan Fine's *innocence* - as in, the fact that he was neither indicted nor convicted - from the story?"

No other response is solicited from either of you, or any other defender of the Strib, and none will be accepted.

Geez, Mitch, SRS "worked for Sprint Corp. for nine-plus years, abstracting newspaper articles and editing the abstracts for use in an in-house newsletter". Qualifications like these must be one of the few, the very few, exceptions to the notion that an Appeal to Authority is normally considered a false argument.

That you didn't hoist the white flag but expanded your unscrupulous attack to include SRS and Doug demeans you. For shame.

I think most relatively intelligent readers can infer from the article that Fine was never convicted since the arrest was all that he had expunged. SRS ripped your lame edit mitch, your post in and of itself was an invite for comment. i wouldn't quarrel with adding a couple of sentences on the lack of an indictment and the fact that Fine now has custody, but overall your edits take simply serve to trash the wife. Hardly the fair and balanced view your profesor Smorada recommends.

"SRS ripped your lame edit mitch"

Oh, d'ya suppose? I ADMITTED that it could stand a rewrite!

But - again - you have dodged the key question, the one that none of the Strib's supporters seem willing to engage; WHY leave the innocence out?

One does not assume the reader will *infer* innocence. I certainly didn't, and I'm vastly more analytical of such things than most.

Ted,

Not only was your comment the same not-very-literate tripe you usually post, and not only did it dodge my question (surprise, surprise), but you were an abrasive little worm. I don't need to take that in my comment section. I deleted your comment.

Feel free to either quit being a worthless dickhead, or quit commenting here. There's probably a place for you with the other morons at Democrat Underground.

Mitch said,

"Why would the Strib leave out Alan Fine's *innocence* - as in, the fact that he was neither indicted nor convicted - from the story?"

Good Lord. It's like trying to explain to a potato why the sky is blue.

Wexler dropped the charges. No Charges. No indictment. No conviction. It's right there in the story Mitch.

And Mitch, you do understand that, unless you are deemed an enemy combatant by your commander-and-thief, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Since, AGAIN, the charges were dropped, there was no hearing... No judgement of guilt.

Now, as to why the Star Trib ran the story in the first place, there is the fact that Fine has been making the persistent attacks against Ellison questioning his character.

Let's put aside the abuse accusation for a minute and just look at how he handled the situation and his character.

Exhibit 1.

"Fine stated in an affidavit connected with the divorce proceedings that his then-wife "admitted to me, in the presence of another person, that she had made a mistake in having me arrested and that her allegations were untrue." Fine was asked repeatedly by reporters to identify who that other person was. He said he could not remember."

He couldn't remember... Kind of an important detail don't cha think?

Exhibit 2.

Bob Fine, a Minneapolis Park Board member, said he couldn't remember details and even if he could, he wouldn't be able to discuss them. "If I disclose anything, I'm violating attorney-client privilege, and I'm on bad enough terms with him anyway," Bob Fine said, referring to his brother.

Hmmm... Sibling conflict intense enough that his brother actually mentions it?

Exhibit 3.

"In his interview, Fine at first said he couldn't remember details of what happened. Then later, he said Rebecca Wexler broke into a "rage" and scratched and hit him. "I came back from work and Rebecca called the police and I ended up in jail," he said.

But it had JUST HAPPENED! How does someone not remember an event that JUST HAPPENED?

Exhibit 4.

"...he waited until 2004 to have the record expunged, Fine said, "I don't know. I just got around to it and did it," he said."

Yup... Just got around to it. Had some shopping to do... Had to change the oil.

Come on. After reading this I didn't come away thinking he was a wife beater but I certainly got the impression he wasn't telling the whole story and he certainly isn't someone I would easily trust.

Fine opened the door to scruitinize a persons character by insinuating that Ellisons' associations makes him a threat to our country.

If you think I'm being over dramatic here, a day or two after the primaries, I was listening to Jason Davis and his callers were outraged that Democrats were supporting a known terrorist. Of course Davis did absolutely nothing to stop or at least temper these delusional idiots. In fact, he agreed with them.

And now, the rant supplied by this bozo on a daily basis is how the media is all against conservatives and how poor Jason Davis and others like him are really victims of the evil George Soros.

And look at you Mitch. Every other post is an obsessive rant about the Star Tribune.

Here's a little secret just between you and me Mitch... We liberals don't need the Star Tribune. We have you guys. George Bush is the greatest recruiting tool a liberal could ask for. We also have a disaster in Iraq brought to us courtesy of idealogues. We have record deficits and record debt brought to us by a Republican Majority in Congress and the White House. We also have Republican corruption in congress so severe that it makes the infractions of Democrats in the 80's and 90's look like summer camp pranks.

You're doing it to yourselves Mitch. The Star Trib isn't the problem. Your party is.

Doug, you seem to have this inborn sense of superiority that causes you to write rhetorical checks than your command of the facts won't let you cash.

For example, when you say...:

"Good Lord. It's like trying to explain to a potato why the sky is blue...Wexler dropped the charges. No Charges.

Right. Got that. But...

"No indictment. No conviction. It's right there in the story Mitch."

No, Doug. The fact that there was no conviction is NOT in the story. The reader is NOWHERE left with the fact that nothing came of the charge - merely that Fine got the charge expunged. The article was written with an air of unseemliness to it.

And, YET AGAIN, you have missed the point. I KNOW how the charges were resolved. What we DO NOT know, for like the fifth time, is why the Strib *left that fact out*. "The reader can figure it out" is not acceptable, since relying on reader intuition is *not clear writing*, and *not* how most "journalists" would approach the story.

That is the issue.

So what's dumber and thicker-headed than a potato?

As to the rest of your little bout of logorrhea - you've written it all before. Repitition doesn't make it any more coherent.

The next time you feel like acting arrogant and condescending in this comment section, Doug, just don't. You're not qualified.

Mitch said,

"No, Doug. The fact that there was no conviction is NOT in the story."

Gee Mitch... and the story never lets the reader know that Fine NEVER served prison time for spousal abuse. What's worse, the Star Tribune chose to ignore the fact that Fine NEVER had an innapropriate sexual relatioship with his cell mate during the time he wasn't incarcerated. Those irresponsible editors at the Tribune went so far as to NOT mention that the appeal that Fine NEVER filed overturning the conviction that NEVER happened was NEVER denied by the Judge that NEVER heard testimony during the original trial that NEVER happened.

Shame on you Star Tribune.

"The reader is NOWHERE left with the fact that nothing came of the charge - merely that Fine got the charge expunged. The article was written with an air of unseemliness to it."

Really Mitch? From the article;

"His wife at the time, Rebecca Wexler, dropped the abuse charge"

Hmmmm... Whatever became of those charges.... Oh yeah. THEY WERE DROPPED.

Let's see... What else. of yeah. Fine had his arrest record and the County court recods expunged.

Before you attempt to talk with such authority, perhaps you should know a little bit about what your saying otherwise you look kinda foolish.

He didn't have the "charges" expunged Mitch. He had the RECORD expunged. There were no charges to expunge because they had been dropped.

There were no charges. Therefore there was no trial and consequently, there was no conviction.

I could figure that out all by myself and I'm just a dumb liberal.

Actually, Doug, the wife cannot drop the charges; dropping would have to be done after filing, and can only be done by the prosecutor. In this case, it seems, that there was not enough to the accusation for charges to be filed, a noteworthy thing in its own right, even a decade ago.

And I'd like to edit my submission, as well; c/Mr. Fine/a candidate/ so that the "not-a-story" is not making the accusation the court is trying to remove.

htom said,

"Actually, Doug, the wife cannot drop the charges; dropping would have to be done after filing, and can only be done by the prosecutor."

The wife agreed to not pursue charges and she also declined to testify against him. Since she was the only petitioner, it is tantamount to her dropping the charges.

"In this case, it seems, that there was not enough to the accusation for charges to be filed"

That's pure supposition. The charges were dropped so no evidence was ever entered. The prosecuter wanted Wexler to testify but she declined so no exploration was ever conducted.

"The wife agreed to not pursue charges and she also declined to testify against him. Since she was the only petitioner, it is tantamount to her dropping the charges."

Don't hang around family court much, do you?

Under current law, the police don't *need* the spouse to press the charges; mindful of the fact that many spouses refrain from pressing charges, the County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation - if there's evidence.

"That's pure supposition. The charges were dropped so no evidence was ever entered."

Right.

But the gentle reader is left to his/her own devices - clairvoyance? - to determine that from the Strib article.

" The prosecuter wanted Wexler to testify but she declined so no exploration was ever conducted."

TRue as far as it goes, but legally irrelevant.

You haven't answered my question, Doug. I'm growing impatient with the stalling.

I'm not a seasoned expert in journalism, like an exerpter from Sprint, or anything. But I have some perspective on this.

Ms. Wexler's ongoing record speaks to her credibility - which could be considered important for the audience to make a valid judgement about the story.

Leaving the fact that no charges were filed, in the context in which the story appeared, was bad journalism.

Mitch said,

"Don't hang around family court much, do you?

Under current law, the police don't *need* the spouse to press the charges; mindful of the fact that many spouses refrain from pressing charges, the County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation - if there's evidence."

First of all Mitch, a charge of physical abuse would likely be handled in the criminal court - not family court so your sarchasm is wasted.

Second, please provide some evidence to support your claim that the "County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation..."

I don't spend much time specifically in family court but I do spend a considerable amount of time on the third an fourth floor at Hennepin County on probate and on Conservator and Guardianship matters. I'll ask the County attorneys I deal with if there is any truth to what you claim.

"You haven't answered my question, Doug. I'm growing impatient with the stalling."

I've answered your question.

Here it is again.

""Why would the Strib leave out Alan Fine's *innocence* - as in, the fact that he was neither indicted nor convicted - from the story?""

Guilt or innocence is determined by a trial. Either a judge, a referee or a jury makes that determination. There was no trial therefor no verdict of guilt or innocence. He was never indicted because the charges were dropped. He was never convicted because there was never a trial.

You don't have to be clairvoyant to figure that out Mitch. You just have to have a simple grasp of logic and at least a fifth grade education. Maybe for the readers of World Nut Daily, this isn't enough but on whole, the Twin Cities readers are a bit more intelligent that the image you're portraying.

Stomping your feet and demanding that I answer your question in a manner that makes you happy isn't going to happen.

Further Mitch, you're making claims that are completely without merit. For example, you claim in the post that, "Alan Fine was completely exonerated of the charges for which he was arrested".

No Mitch. Exonerated in the legal sense means that a jury has declared a person is not guilty of charges. Again, there was no trial so to claim he was exonerated is just dead wrong.

Honestly Mitch, you need to just stop. I'm starting to feel embarrased for you.

"First of all Mitch, a charge of physical abuse would likely be handled in the criminal court - not family court so your sarchasm is wasted."

Not exactly true. You need to get your facts straight.

Since 1997, Minnesota has allowed the assignment of *all* family-related issues, including domestic abuse, to a single judge - to "improve the resolution of family issues (Laws 1997, ch. 239, art. 7, § 40).

Exceptions may exist, but in fact in both Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, the same judge that handles a divorce will frequently also adjudicate any related domestic abuse cases.

"Second, please provide some evidence to support your claim that the "County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation..."

Most states have abolished "spousal privilege" in cases of domestic abuse over the past twenty years, in effect making domestic violence a crime against the *state*, rather than an individual - SPECIFICALLY to allow such prosecutions.

Giving prosecutors the power to assess the reasons for a "victim's" withdrawal of cooperation, and the ability to proceed without that cooperation, is an issue that's even gotten some feminists up in arms.

One good piece - No Right to Choose: Mandated Victim Participation in Domestic Violence Prosecutions - Cheryl Hanna
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 109, No. 8 (Jun., 1996), pp. 1849-1910"

"Guilt or innocence is determined by a trial."

Really?

Fill in the blank, Doug: "The accused is _______ until proven guilty in a court of law".

You only get ten guesses.

"Either a judge, a referee or a jury makes that determination. There was no trial therefor no verdict of guilt or innocence. He was never indicted because the charges were dropped. He was never convicted because there was never a trial."

Therefore, in the eyes of the law, HE IS INNOCENT. You can hold whatever opinion you want, but in the eyes of the law, there is only one answer.

Of course, by not mentioning that fact (or, as Rochelle Olson put it, by assuming the reader could figure it out), it created an alternate impression in the minds of readers who aren't equipped to figure it out.

"You don't have to be clairvoyant to figure that out Mitch. You just have to have a simple grasp of logic and at least a fifth grade education. Maybe for the readers of World Nut Daily, this isn't enough but on whole, the Twin Cities readers are a bit more intelligent that the image you're portraying."

BUT THAT IS NOT HOW JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO BE PRACTICED. You can snark about perceived intelligence of your pet audiences (unwarranted, as usual), but the fact is that leaving out key facts, and relying on *assumptions* about the audience's perception, is *sloppy* journalism at the very least.

Or were you somehow, somewhere, taught some alternative version of journalistic ethics? Because when I was taught how to report, that sort of assumption would have gotten me, at the least, chewed out.

"Stomping your feet and demanding that I answer your question in a manner that makes you happy isn't going to happen."

Happy, Schmappy. You are not equipped to answer it. You don't know the facts, and are making up an alternate reality in which ethical journalism leaves room for assumptions about what the audience can figure out on their on as re key facts of a story - which is how Ms. Olson put it, in as many words!

"No Mitch. Exonerated in the legal sense means that a jury has declared a person is not guilty of charges. Again, there was no trial so to claim he was exonerated is just dead wrong."

You are, in a sense, correct - but only if you contradict your previous assertion that innocence is determined at trial! Since - you're correct - there was no determination of guilt, there can be no exoneration, because *he's innocent until proven guilty*.

"Honestly Mitch, you need to just stop. I'm starting to feel embarrased for you."

Well, you should feel embarassed, anyway. You have no apparent knowledge of the law, its application in domestic abuse situations, or about the practice of journalism.

"I don't spend much time specifically in family court but I do spend a considerable amount of time on the third an fourth floor at Hennepin County on probate and on Conservator and Guardianship matters. I'll ask the County attorneys I deal with if there is any truth to what you claim."

Doug: Fuck you. Seriously. Fuck you with a stick. "IF there's truth to what I claim?" I've spent VASTLY more time on this issue than you, God willing, ever will, you sanctimonious douchebag.

Raise your questions if you want. But you are neither qualified nor entitled to condescend to me on *any* issue, much less this one.

This is, I suspect, like your "election observer" fantasy from last year, where your "election observer" story was shown to be, let's be charitable, exaggerated. But go ahead - ask your pals. Assuming any of them has the faintest familiarity with how the family/domestic system works (and frankly, after some of your little flights of fancy in this comment section you have *zero* credibility when it comes to relating facts), you might learn something.

It could happen.

I would deffinetly use the terms MURDER and SHOY rather then GUUNED DOWN and ROBBER instead of GUNMAN and i certanly would not have DUNESBURY or BOONDOCKS thats the liberal crap and i would use RADICALS to discrib those who are trying to wreck this country and i would allow conservatives have colums in the paper and i would call GLOBAL WARMING ACID RAIN and EVOLUTION JUNK SCIENCE

Mitch said,

"Guilt or innocence is determined by a trial."

Really?

Fill in the blank, Doug: "The accused is _______ until proven guilty in a court of law".

Mitch, go back to my second post in this thread. There you'll find this...

"And Mitch, you do understand that, unless you are deemed an enemy combatant by your commander-and-thief, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty."

You know as well as I do that when I said,
"Guilt or innocence is determined by a trial", I was stating that it the process of a trial which makes the final determination. If there's no trial, the accused is considered to innocent.

"You know as well as I do that when I said..."

OK. Fair enough.

Now - under what standard of journalistic ethics is the leaving out of the fact of the story's subject's innocence considered acceptable?

Mitch said,

"Now - under what standard of journalistic ethics is the leaving out of the fact of the story's subject's innocence considered acceptable?"

Asked and answered multiple times.

The only person that thinks there's an chance that Fine is anything other than innocent is you Mitch. What's that all about?

...and speaking of journalistic ethics, is it now acceptable to strike one half of a conditional statement to create your own version to fit your agenda?

Don't preach what you yourself choose not to practice.

"Asked and answered multiple times."

Answered from your own self-serving perspective. Never answered from the perspective of someone who knows anything about journalism.

"The only person that thinks there's an chance that Fine is anything other than innocent is you Mitch. What's that all about?"

That was a statement of black-hole density, Doug.

I KNOW he was innocent. There was just no way under any form of journalistic ethics that that should not have been *explicitly stated* in the original article.

That's been asked, all right - and never answered.

"Don't preach what you yourself choose not to practice."

Doug, you have taken leave of all logic.

I don't claim to be a "journalist". I don't pretend to follow any of the professional "standards" journalists are supposed to follow. Unlike you, I know what they are - because I used to work as a reporter.

As far as I'm concerned, anything you have to say on this topic is a waste of time. You dont' know what you're what you're talking about.

So don't comment on this thread any more.

If there's anyone who DOES know what they're talking about, I'd love to hear from you.

cross posted for your viewing pleasure...

Mitch said,

"Hey, how's that research down at Goverment Center? Have all your lawyer friends ponied up about how very very wrong I am yet?"

Funny you should ask...

Lets review how we got to this point...

Mitch said,

"Don't hang around family court much, do you?

Under current law, the police don't *need* the spouse to press the charges; mindful of the fact that many spouses refrain from pressing charges, the County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation - if there's evidence."

To which, I responded,

"First of all Mitch, a charge of physical abuse would likely be handled in the criminal court - not family court so your sarchasm is wasted."

Now, on to the facts...

If a person files a complaint against a spouse and later drops the complaint, the police can pursue the matter independently. When this happens, the police file a complaint and the County attorney then files the charges and then the courts take over - that's the criminal court. NOT the family court.

With regard to the family courts, they act collaterally with the criminal courts when issues of spousal support and maintenance apply and they deal with issuances of restrining orders.

Additionally, county attorneys can file charges without the consent or cooporation of a spouse but it is done in situations where there is a history of abuse reports that go without intervention or prosecution or if the severity of a single incident justifies the county interveening on the victims behalf.

To suggest that this happens very frequently is just plain wrong.

Granted, I only talked to three attorneys regarding this and they all gave the same answer but I'll take the word from people who do this for a living over yours.

Doug,

"Additionally, county attorneys can file charges without the consent or cooporation of a spouse but it is done in situations where there is a history of abuse reports that go without intervention or prosecution or if the severity of a single incident justifies the county interveening on the victims behalf.

To suggest that this happens very frequently is just plain wrong. "

Since you have a history of relating "facts" (I'm talking about your "election observer" tale) either incompletely or , let me emphasize this: nothing you said either undercuts the facts as I presented them (namely that the County, should it desire, doesn't need the accuser's permission to proceed with a prosecution; you describe exactly what I described; the county's criteria for prosecuting without the victim's cooperation are "flexible"). If I missed a legal specific or two (the exact overlap between family and criminal court, for example), well, duh. I'm not a lawyer. But until I corrected you, you seemed unaware that there WAS such an overlap.

And (and this is important) you have not yet answered my *real* question. Under what system of journalistic ethics is it acceptable to omit the fact that Alan Fine was never convicted from the story?

Pointillistic nattering about what the audience can figure for themselves both dodges the point and betrays someone who never learned to be a reporter; Fine's innocence and lack of a conviction was a key element in understanding the Fine/Wexler story. Leaving it out was inexcusable.

Ask some of the journalists you no doubt also hang around with.

Mitch, I didn't *have* to check with attorneys to know what I was talking about. I have the pleasure of dealing with the overlap between courts all the time.

They only confirmed what I had already stated.

To your election observer comments which you have refered to far too many times to count, I posted this in another thread but will repeat here.
_________________________________

Mitch said,

"which after your little "election observer" stunt is always up for question"

You mean my little "stunt" where I described in detail exactly what I was doing as a volunteer for MoveOn but foolishly and incorrectly called it election observing which was followed immediately by my acknowledgment that I was wrong?
________________________________

I would say it's time to you quit insinuating some sinister motive behind my election observer comment but since you seem to need that for ammunition, keep it. I wouldn't want to leave you completely defenseless.