Cone, Guarino and ConAlt on Bledsoe’s latest chapter. To the the truth, the story in print didn’t meet the expectations raised by the blogosphere. I was getting the feeling Lorraine Ahearn was a regular Judith Miller, only to find out her biggest story was the one she didn’t write.
I see Bledsoe’s point: If word could get around to a reporter that a cop was dirty, then it must be true. I also realize Bledsoe is all too happy to get a dig in at the N&R.
So who cares what Ahearn’s motives were? Her work speaks for itself.
Note the comment at Cone’s from Meblogin regarding the RMA:
I have said before, as others have, that the RMA report does not read like research. In my opinion research findings should not be laced with speculation or inuendos. The RMA report did read like a coached document by the customer. (…meaning..here is the outcome I am looking for…..) Do others disagree or agree?
That’s what bloggers do: Look for any evidence of editorializing in supposedly objective reports. I guess neither RMA nor the city know this. But they didn’t want bloggers to see the report, did they?