QUESTIONS: Johnson case needs answers
After re-reading the front page puff piece you published on Adam Johnson Wednesday March 31, I was left with a number of questions:
Why? It provided a front page, above the fold platform for Mr. Johnson to rehabilitate his image while a civil case is pending. No perspective, no reference to police reports, no probing questions, no view from the wounded parties. Is that how front page news should be developed?
What are the personal and business relationships among Mr. Johnson, his lawyer, the Press and the reporter?
What roll did alcohol play Early reports indicted Mr. Johnson had been drinking. Again, what did police reports show?Shouldn’t a news story cover those aspects?
What do CCW statutes say about carrying a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
If alcohol was involved, doesn’t preparing to drive oneself home constitute further poor judgment? Where was the follow-up on this issue?
Why did a business executive need a public defender?
Why didn’t the reporter pursue these and other questions? The easy answer and poor excuse is because a lawsuit is pending. This is all the more reason not to present this image promotion as news, let alone front page news.
What happened that night reopens the debate about liberal CCW laws. I support gun ownership and right-to-carry. However, reckless disregard for good judgment by some (including avoiding carrying while drinking) put those rights at risk for all of us.