Sadly Enough, American Media has Come to This

For the second time in a week, The St. Louis Post Dispatch has fallen on harsh criticism. Last week, readers were ignited by Cardinal coach Tony LaRussa over an article that ran on the front page of the sports section bashed the history of the division rival Chicago Cubs. This week, the paper found itself neck deep in debate again after a story ran on the front page of the paper suggesting that Josh Hancock had been drinking at the time of his fatal accident.

Last week's basis: a franchise that hasn't won a World Series since it wouldn't accept a goat's ticket 98 years ago.
This week's basis: an account from "a man named Vince."

Has the Post Dispatch crossed the line? The topic is certainly up for debate and opinions regarding the paper are forming rapidly. Many locals are in rage over the paper's "sketchy" reporting but are left with nowhere else to go for their news, considering the Post Dispatch is St. Louis' single source for city-wide news. Other citizens are standing behind the paper's editors and reporters, claiming they're simply doing their job. So who's right and who's wrong?

The debate will go on, but there's one thing for certain: the Post Dispatch did not run Tuesday's article concerning Hancock's alcohol consumption without being sure it had its back covered. For those that think "Vince" simply called up the paper's front desk Monday evening and started rattling on about his night at Mike Shannon's bar with Josh Hancock, you're wrong. In the contemporary age of easily-brought lawsuits that we live in, there is absolutely NO WAY that the Post Dispatch didn't have numerous sources and and accurate accounts of Hancock's night before it ran this story. They protected their backs. If not, then they're are in for some serious court time.

The real dimwits in this situation are "Vince" and his "anonymous" wife. For what reason did they feel the need to report their knowledge to the Post Dispatch? The right thing to do would have been to call the St. Louis Police Department and tell them what they know, leaving the rest up to authorities. For some reason, this wasn't the case. They wanted publicity and they were cowards about it, refusing to give up their full names. The way I see it, if you're so sure that Hancock was under the influence then why try to hide your identities? If they weren't willing to put their reputation on the line with this testimony, then they never should have come forward to the local media.

I have no problem with "Vince" telling what he knows, but I do think he went about it the wrong way. He told the wrong people what he knows and he did it as a publicity stunt. There is no other way of looking at. He could certainly give us the excuse of "I wanted the people of St. Louis to know what really happened." This is hogwash, the truth would've come out soon enough. Eventually we all are going to know the whole truth behind the tragic events, we didn't need to learn it from an anonymous source. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and "Vince" and his faceless wife should be ashamed. If they had a son or a daughter killed in an accident such as this, would they want some "no-namer" without any pure evidence leaking the story to the press? No, they wouldn't it.

So, considering all that, do I think the Post Dispatch was wrong in relaying the story? No, I don't. I think it's shady, and if I would've been the editor of that paper than I certainly wouldn't have allowed the story to run. But I'm not the editor, and I realize that the Post Dispatch has an agenda and it was simply trying to fulfill that agenda. It's job is to report ON the news, not necessarily to simply report the news. Comparing it to another contemporary event taking place, do you really think even half the crap the Post Dispatch reports about the War in Iraq is completely accurate? Absolutely not. And that goes for every newspaper in this country. The stuff they print about the war is no more grounded in fact than this story about Hancock was. And it's probably even worse, considering the government has access to most of those stories first and can certainly hide some things, while twisting others. Reporting ON the news is what America media is all about, and that won't change. Bottom line.

It's a shame we had to hear the news like this, but the Post Dispatch has people talking about their newspaper. And that's what they want. The paper itself is national news right now, the sports columnist's are national news, the editors are national news. I'm not saying their goal is to reap fame from Hancock's tragedy, but I don't they're losing sleep over it.

The truth is, whether the story came from "Vince," another local, or from one of their columnists - it was coming. St. Louis wasn't going to wait until the toxicology report came back. And you'd probably be lying if you said you didn't suspect, almost immediately, that Hancock had a few drinks that evening. The speculation was coming, and the news will come next week. We all know that chances are good they'll say the same thing.

For now, since the report has been broken, I'm ok with the Post Dipatch continuing with this story. The family has already heard their suspicions confirmed and now we must treat this as a lesson. If it takes continued reporting on this issue to get it through people's heads that drinking and driving is dangerous, then keep on reporting it. Hancock's death was tragic and unfortunate, but we must learn from it.