It was true, at least sort of
This post has led to this news story. So there was at least a grain of truth there.
I wish the Trib would get its facts straight, however. It refers to "a blog posting by... Jack Bogdanski that alleged a Portland police officer had been found to have a medical marijuana growing operation in his or her basement." The post did not say anything about medical marijuana -- that was a way-off-base suggestion by a commenter. The post also did not express an opinion about the truth or falsity of the rumor that had been sent to me. And the e-mail I printed did not say that the officer, who was not identified, "had been found to have" anything. It said that marijuana was discovered growing in his basement, without saying who might have been growing it there.
Finally, my employer, identified by the Trib, has nothing to do with that post or anything else written on this blog. It's my hobby.
UPDATE, 4:17 p.m.: At least the reference to "medical" has been taken out of the Trib story.
UPDATE, 5:27 p.m.: Some additional changes have been made to the language of the Trib story that better reflect what I originally posted. Thanks, Nick.
| Posted at 3:46 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (16)
Take your fame and be satisfied LOL Remember it's getting the spelling of name correct that is important.
Posted by KISS | March 26, 2007 4:01 PM
looks like someone already commented on that very point on that site.
i'm constantly surpised at how sloppy journalism has become these days.
Posted by ecohuman.com | March 26, 2007 4:13 PM
I knew Hythum in college (he was a member of my fraternity) and have run into him from time to time in his capacity as an officer. He's a good guy and, I believe, a good cop. Any of the implied shenanigans would be, in my opinion, way out of character for him. So I'll be reserving judgment until more info comes out...
Posted by Rusty | March 26, 2007 4:58 PM
Jack, I erroneously used the word "medical." Thanks for bringing the error to our attention, we've taken it out. The passive tense 'had been found to have ... in" rather than "discovered" did not intend to imply possession or knowledge, but we've changed it to make that clear. Thanks for the tip.
Nick B.
Portland Tribune
Posted by Nick Budnick | March 26, 2007 6:01 PM
Sounds good. Now you can get on with digging deeper into this interesting story.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 26, 2007 6:10 PM
Sorry Jack. Check is in the mail.
Posted by Pamphlin | March 26, 2007 7:44 PM
Glad to be of help.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 26, 2007 7:50 PM
Jack, where were you when I had a column in the Tribune? I could have used the help.
Posted by Bill McDonald | March 26, 2007 8:32 PM
The "O" just broke the story.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/03/portland_police_officers_relat.html
Posted by Swimmer | March 26, 2007 8:50 PM
Is it still "breaking the story" if they're the third one to publish?
Posted by Mister Tee | March 26, 2007 9:00 PM
I'm not sure repeating a rumor is really "breaking" anything. The Trib had the first legitimate story that I saw.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 26, 2007 11:28 PM
Mr. Tee,
I was being facetious
Posted by Swimmer | March 27, 2007 5:24 AM
The degree to which the mainstream media will attack blogs whenever they can is really remarkable. Both the Trib and the O reprint Schmautz's assertion that Jack's "allegation" is false, even though the original post never claimed to be true (in fact, Jack said he hoped it wasn't true). It's sort of a backhanded way of acknowledging they were scooped by a blog while still attacking the blog's credibility.
It's weird to me that the MM sees blogs as competition, rather than as a complement. There's no reason a good reporter can't use blogs in the same way he uses inside sources elsewhere. Maybe they're just pissed because their sources are now available to everyone, so it makes them feel less special.
Posted by Miles | March 27, 2007 10:49 AM
"There's no reason a good reporter can't use blogs in the same way he uses inside sources elsewhere."
I may just be guessing here, but face-to-face contact with a source known to a reporter might engender greater trust than plucking unverifiable information out of a blog.
Posted by pg | March 27, 2007 11:10 AM
Just one more item to add to the mix. The Oregonian is such a pathetic excuse for a newspaper that they don't even operate their own website. It's one of the few "majors" that I can think of that doesn't. Yet they have the stones to question anything posted on a blog.
Posted by Dave A. | March 27, 2007 11:47 AM
The latest - and greatest - defense yet:
"Any of the implied shenanigans would be, in my opinion, way out of character for him."
Yeah, just like the guy that toked up at his Christmas party. That was way out of character for him too, supposedly. So, I guess that excuse works. If you're a cop.
Sorry, but to my understanding, the fact that Ismail not only owns the home - but also lives there - makes him guilty in the eyes of the law, does it not? I mean, when they make their infamous raids on meth houses - everyone goes to jail, whether they had shit on 'em or not, right? People have lost their homes and property due to asset forfeiture laws, without even being charged or prosecuted for God's sake, simply because drugs were found there.
And whether or not he had DRE (Drug Recognition Education?) training (as one poster on the Trib's site mentioned) is irrelevant. If ROCN "targets mid-level drug traffickers" as the Trib reports, this guy wasn't just chippin' with some friends. If Ismail didn't know what was going on (yeah, right) - he certainly should have. What kind of cop is he in either case?
Posted by Madam Hatter | March 27, 2007 8:49 PM