Here's an interesting exchange I had with a reader last week, after we published a preview of comedian Paula Poundstone's upcoming show in Rochester:
Do you think that people have already forgotten about Paula Poundstone's legal troubles that surfaced in June of 2001? Charged with lewd acts on a (female) child and child endangerment charges(also endangering two boys and two other girls under the age of 14)...she plead "no contest to some of these charges in order to have some of these charges dropped. Just curious as to your opinion? Thank you.
A local father of young children
Here's my reply:
Thanks for the note. ... Actually, I would guess people probably have forgotten...I don't think it's something that needs to be mentioned in our story or every story about her, but it's certainly part of the record when the final story is told.
He responded:
Jay, after researching/sharing your answer with no less than 25 neighbors,friends,and co-workers we've come to the conclusion that we DO feel everyone should hear about Paula Poundstone's history. It was brought up by a few ..."would your opinion be the same if this would have been a male comedian trying to restart a career after having the same problems/charges/convictions against minor boys and girls?"
A few subscriptions are riding on this answer. Thank you.
Last go-round for me:
Hi -- not sure what you're looking for from me -- I'll say again, I don't think her criminal record needs to be addressed in every story -- if that were true, we'd be including a lot of background on the criminal past of many entertainers, pro athletes, celebrities, etc., who come through our area, and a lot of those criminal convictions would be more heinous that Poundstone's. But certainly a reporter is free to ask the question and if she responds with something interesting or relevant, we'd obviously publish it.
Regarding whether we'd treat her case differently if she was a male comedian -- nope. And I might add on to that, since it may be part of your group's discussion, are we treating her differently because of whatever sexual orientation she might have? Nope. We just don't include a criminal history on everybody we write about.
I'll also note that her career isn't really being restarted at this point...the incidents you're referring to occurred in 2001, I believe, and she's had a career since then.
Don't know how this addresses your friends whose "subscriptions are riding on this answer," but that's beside the point -- like most news organizations, we have time-tested standards of fairness and accuracy to assure our credibility, and those standards are a big part of our on-going success.
If you're interested, I'll post this dialogue on my blog and let other readers chime in.
Best wishes and thanks for reading.
Since he didn't respond affirmatively on the blog posting, I've kept him nameless.
I'll repeat, if the reporter had chosen to ask the question and gotten an interesting answer from Poundstone, fine, we'd use it. But I don't think it's a prerequisite for running a story about her.
Recent Comments