Jackson Free Press

Cledger-Ledger honchos have been known to declare that the paper does not use "unnamed sources." We already know that's not true due to mucked-up stories like the one by Ledger Washington Bureau reporter Ana Radalat (OK, they called her that before the muck-up) where she wrote a story based on an MBN memo in 2003 "obtained from" Frank Melton, who was then an unnamed source. Ledger Metro editor Grace Simmons accepted the piece, despite the supposed policy against unnamed sources—and, alas, the memo turned out to be largely false, blah, blah.

Today the Ledger has a page one story about Judge Delaughter by reporter Jerry Mitchell that relies solely on an unnamed source that he doesn't bother to explain at all, even to say they're an unnamed source, which leads one to think that the Ledger thinks that not admitting to unnamed sources means they're not using them. Uh, no.

In essense, he starts the confusing story by telling us:

Authorities are investigating the finances of suspended Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter, including his purchase of a Civil War-era house.

Note that he then does not tell us how he knows that information (like: "according to a source in the U.S. Attorney's office..." or "according to an internal investigative memo leaked to The Clarion-Ledger.") There is no explanation whatsoever, which is a common habit at the Ledger, and one we've seen Mitchell use a number of times in the DeLaughter saga alone. Is this to get around admitting to a naive public that the Ledger is, in fact, using "unnamed sources"? If not, it's just sloppy and should not get past an editor.

The truth, whether the Ledger wants to admit it or not, is that all investigative reporting needs unnamed sources -- to tell us stuff, to blow the whistle, to give us documents. Pretending that they don't use them is extremely disingenious, and an article written like this one just makes the reader wonder what the reporter is up to. In addition, very little else is said in the piece, other than previously published information on a house that DeLaughter bought.

The story seems like a hit job to me because, clearly, no one in the DeLaughter camp talked to Mitchell. Thus, how does he know that DeLaughter didn't, say, use the book advance from his book about the Beckwith case to buy the house? Or that his wife didn't come up with it in some way? This story clearly did not seem ready for primetime.

Speaking of the Beckwith case, why is Mitchell writing about the DeLaughter-Peters scandal? He was also in the film he refers to, which was loosely based on a case his work helped with—he clearly has a conflict of interest in covering DeLaughter and doesn't even reveal it.

We have noticed that readers are questioning Mitchell's coverage of late as well. Under this story, one reader has posted:

This is another patch-work story by I-no-longer-care-about-investigative-reporting Jerry Mitchell. The only thing new here is Delaughter's house payment. Which includes some yo-yo that reads the NY Times and believes "A balloon is very conservative.". Gee - what a nut. And the sad part is the CL thinks this quality (or lack of) reporting that belongs on the front page.

Previous Commentsshow

Let's look at this paragraph in specific: There has been no suggestion by any of those cooperating with federal authorities that DeLaughter accepted any money. Disbarred New Albany lawyer Tim Balducci testified in a recent hearing that DeLaughter was bribed by way of being considered for a federal judgeship. First, the writing and lack of editing: You have a "there is" and a passive in the same sentence—two of the worst writing offenders right there together. How about: "No one cooperating with federal authorities has suggested that ..." And what a hideous construction: "...was bribed by way of being considered for a federal judgeship." But then, let's get to the substance of that first sentence. Mitchell is claiming to know everything that "those cooperating with federal authorities" said, as well as what they didn't say. How could he know that? Who is the federal authority—the unnamed source—who is leaking that level of information to him? The only way you could make this statement accurately is for someone with knowledge about the full investigation to tell you that no one has said that. Is that the U.S. attorney? And the problem that arises from that particular question is whether that level of leakage to someone with a clear past relationship with DeLaughter will affect this case in any way down the road. This story sure raises a helluva more questions than it bothers to answer.

DonnaLadd

2008-04-13T09:52:40-06:00

ID

117997

Comment

Is this where Mitchell got the story tip about the house? Hat tip to Folo folks for getting there first. And here's their thread on Mitchell's story today. Seems a lot of people are having a hard time understanding its relevancy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-04-13T09:57:52-06:00

ID

117998

Comment

Interesting. Bill Skinner posted under Mitchell's story to give a fuller picture of the interview he gave Mitchell: I was not attacking Judge Delaughter, Jerry Mitchell took a 45 minute interview about mortages, former law partners, and attorneys, and turned it into one paragraph. In response to me being Flashbulb II, I am one of the few Judges that returns reporters phone calls and interviews, because I have nothing to hide, and I've spent my entire judicial career trying to maintain integrity in my courtroom, without an ounce of speculation. I have never been appointed to anything in my career, and talk of this is news to me. I got where I am by hard work and knocking on doors, not by country club republicans, PAC money, or Trial Lawyers. Flashbulb II or call it what you like, it beat the hell out of being called corrupt! 4/13/2008 12:18:10 PM Recommend (2) Report Abuse BillSkinner wrote: As far as the comment of me handling the least amount of cases, my staff and I have handled over 1900 cases since January 2008 to date. That includes Youth Court, two drug courts, and bad check court. FYI, in bad check court last year, we returned over $600,000 to merchants in Hinds County. AND, the last 3 months of 2007, my court did more cases that ALL other County and Circuit Court Judges combined for the entire 2007 year, so who's doing the work? ! 4/13/2008 12:16:50 PM Recommend (2) Report Abuse BillSkinner wrote: I told Jerry that the morgage in itself was not a problem, however, my family and I could not do a loan like the one Bobby and Peggy have. First of all, I have three kids and I could not make that type of house payment, second, with balloon payments, you are betting that your house will appreciate, and you know that is not always the case. I also told him that perception is everything, just the perception of someone influencing a judge affects that judge?s credibility, whether it is true or not. I do not even socialize with lawyers or anyone that appears before me because of that perception. As far as me turning on Bobby, that is the farthest thing from the truth. I consider him and his wife friends. My wife and I pray for him and his family everyday because of what they are going through, whether he is guilty or not, and this entire situation reflects on every Mississippi Judge. 4/13/2008 12:13:51 PM

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-04-13T16:06:16-06:00