VA Pilot catches up

Local, Norfolk 1 Minute

Things are really bad when the local newspaper covers a local story after someone else does. Such is the case of the story about a Norfolk student who was suspended for two days because she accepted an over-the-counter pain killer from another student. Alice at GOTV alerted us to this story yesterday. The story first appeared on local TV station WVEC but it took until today for the Virginian Pilot to write about it. (The WVEC site requires registration and I couldn’t locate the date of the original video since I choose not to register there.)

Why did it take at least two days for this story to be reported? Just goes to show you how stale the news in the Pilot can be.

Published

22 thoughts on “VA Pilot catches up”

  2. You’re lways picking on us, Vivian. We do our best. Really.

    Regardless of one slipup, the reality is that most evenings you’ll see the newscasts following our stories.

  3. The Pilot may be a rag, but it’s our rag.
    Also, isn’t Mastio the same guy who wrote the editorials saying that it is ok to appoint political cronies to judgeships (while others wait their turn) and that it is ok for the Commonwealth’s Attorney to say whatever he wants about judges because he is just a politician? Now those are reasons to criticize the Pilot.

  4. Alice – I didn’t realize that Tom Joad had it first. Dave – I really have not been picking on the Pilot lately. Yes, Marcia, same Dave 😉

  5. I did not write an editorial saying it was ok to appoint political cronies to the bench. I wrote an editorial that said being a man or being a prosecutor were not disqualifications for the bench. The Pilot did write an editorial saying that Commonwealth’s Attorneys do not give up their First Amendement right to criticise the judiciary when they assume office and I agreed with it. However, I did not write it. I don’t cover Virginia Beach, I cover Portsmouth for the editorial page.

    So that must have been a different Dave or something.

  7. Dave –
    I remember that ridiculous editorial about the judgeships. It really speaks for itself, especially since Nick Rerras immediately seized the opportunity to call a judicial candidate a “FemiNazi.” He must have assumed no one would call him on it. Fortunately, we have other sources of information and opinion than the Pilot. About the only editorial I can remember that was worse was the most recent one listing all the things Thelma Drake has done wrong, and then endorsing her for re-election anyway. Really, what does the Pilot think of the educational level and intelligence of its readers?

  8. I’d say the absolute worst thing I’ve ever seen the Pilot do was put Johnny Joannou on the cover of the Hampton Roads section saying he was, I believe, “A man of the people.”

    Never mentioned he had opposition, never mentioned anything negative about him at all. It was a two page love note from the Pilot to Joannou. Yet another reason to sometimes question the integrity of the Pilot regarding local politicians.

  9. Sorry to blame the wrong Dave for the Harvey Bryant editorial but it had the same flippant smart… tone as the pro-crony editorial. I do recall that Dave also did a pro-Chuck Griffith editorial..before the Va Supreme Court slammed Judge Chuck.
    Pro Rerras and pro Joannou and pro judicial misconduct. I guess that’s why folks around here generally ignore the editorials.

  10. For the record, we slammed Rerras pretty hard for the Femi-Nazi thing. If memory serves the Pilot ran a critical editorial on Griffith after the Supreme Court ruling.

    Sorry to hear you dislike the editorials so much. That’s why God invented the op-ed page and letters.

  11. Ok I’ve got it. Dave writes a bad editorial, then others clean up the mess with a later editorial. If you cover Portsmouth, Dave, why are you doing articles about Norfolk judges? Could it be that a member of your family who works in the Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office asked you to write favorable editorials about her former boss (Chuck) and co-worker (Karen Burrell)? Aren’t there some journalist ethics about things like that?

  12. Marcia,

    It is true that my ex-wife works for Jack Doyle. However, she never worked for Griffith (I still don’t know what pro-Griffith editorial you are talking about) and she doesn’t tell me what editorials to write. Regardless, while the unsigned editorials are written by individuals, they reflect the consensus of the editorial board. I certainly wouldn’t write about my ex or her current employer.

    I understand you didn’t like the tone of editorial that mentioned Burrell, but do you really disagree with its point: Maleness and employment as a prosecutor should not disqualify someone for a position on the bench — that applicants should be considered as individuals. What is wrong about that?

    As I recall, the editorial came in response to a front page story in which several judicial candidates where attacked by anonymous complainers for their sex or current employment. The editorial was a good corrective.

  13. As I recall, the editorial looked like an endorsement for a political candidate, not a discussion of appointment of a judge (as it relates to Burrell). Why not reprint it here, so everyone can form their own opinion?
    Foolish me, I think that the most qualified candidate should be selected and clearly all of the selection panels put the particular man and woman toward the bottom of the bunch and not just for employment or gender reasons.

  15. Reading back over it, I still really like that editorial, particularly this part:

    But if another prosecutor on the nine-judge court will dangerously unbalance the bench, then surely there’s a problem with the fact that a majority of the court has done criminal defense work. As if to show how ludicrous the whole exercise is, some of the former prosecutors and some of the former defense lawyers are the same people.

Comments are closed.