When the District Attorney calls a morning press conference but the announcement says nothing about the purpose of the gathering, we tend to think there’s something big to be announced.
Could it be an arrest in the fatal hit and run on Third Street? Or maybe something about the Redmond police lieutenant that allegedly sold guns out of the back of the armory?
Nope. None of those things. It turns out that this morning’s conference had to do with a story that broke in today’s Bulletin about documents pertaining to new hires in the district attorney’s office. That story also stated that a Bulletin reporter, Hillary Borrud, had been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury on Friday.
In the press conference this morning, DA Patrick Flaherty read from a prepared statement that had been handed out to the assembled media (which included both television stations, OPB, local news radio, the Source and The Bulletin), saying that the hiring information provided to our daily paper featured personal information, including phone numbers, addresses and driver’s license numbers.
Flaherty’s office asked that the documents be returned so that the personal information be redacted, then given back to the newspaper.
But Flaherty says the newspaper has not returned the documents.
“It is unclear as to why The Bulletin is refusing to return the documents for the purpose of redacting private information their own legal counsel acknowledges was received in error,” Flaherty said.
What’s perhaps more interesting than the flap with The Bulletin is when Flaherty said: “We do not know if the release of this confidential information was simply a mistake or intentional. That is the focus of the Grady Jury investigation.”
So it sounds like Flaherty’s office wants to know who sent out these documents with all this information, and also, why they did it.
After he finished reading the statement, Flaherty stood up, unclipped the microphone a television station had given him, and left the room, not answering the questions fired off by Bulletin reporter Scott Hammers, who had written that morning’s article.
…Just when you thought the D.A.’s office was starting to get boring.
This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2011.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Maybe if it was a Source editors personal information that was released, maybe there would be a different viewpoint. Where is there a template for what the threshold is for holding a press conference? The DA has the right to communicate in any manner he sees fit. Should he publish a daily newsletter, web page announcement, or maybe soapbox downtown. It is interesting to see the verbiage used to diminish, or dilute the DA’s approach….”flap”, snide comment about “boring”. Also, the DA is under no obligation to answer any questions, just like fish wrap editorial authors are under no obligation to respond…no different. will look forward to the source only reporting “major” news events….no small ,invasion of privacy stuff now.
In my opinion Costa & the Bulletin were caught in another one of their witch hunts. If you want to interview someone and write a friendly little article about them then request an interview. The request for the life history and qualifications of all people Flaherty replaced after being newly elected doesn’t pass the smell test. Sounds like a good recipe for revenge, possibly by somebody who lost employment when the new DA was elected. There is also something very odd about the Bulletin deciding who is ‘worthy’ of being employed. Why does Costa consider himself to be the ‘great decider’? I didn’t vote for Flaherty but I believe he is qualified to hire anyone he chooses.
As for the Bulletin I believe their opinions about who deserves employment and compensation is absolutely none of their business.
No observation by the ‘reporter’ of fellow reporter’s refusal to testify under their ‘immunity from disclosure of info obtained while on the job’? You get what you give.
Journalists, all media forms, believe they are entitled an explanation any time they demand one! Yet, sadly they are rarely willing to return the favor.
I think I will make a public records request to the corporation that owns the Bulletin for a list of all employees or free lance writers/consultants that have valid press ID and passes. I wonder what information I will get.
Hey morons (especially you, BendNative95): The Bulletin isn’t a public institution. It isn’t funded by tax dollars. That’s one reason employment records for folks who work there are not PUBLIC RECORDS.
Also, a press conference isn’t necessary if you’re not going to answer questions. If you’re not going to answer questions, just send out your press release. What Flaherty did is the equivalent of asking someone to come over to your house to read an email you just sent them. It’s idiotic, and it shows how clueless Flaherty is.