They've got to be kidding
The O has a story up on its affiliated website this morning: "Police show photo in grocery shooting." In it, reporter Maxine Bernstein dutifully reports:
Portland police on Tuesday released an image of a suspect captured by surveillance cameras, hoping that someone can identify the gunman who shot a 41-year-old man minding the cash register at the Belmont 34 Grocery on Sunday afternoon.O.k., the reader asks, so where is the picture?
It. Isn't. There. Not even a link. At least not three hours after the story was first posted.
Oh, there's a photo on that page, all right. Just not one that goes with anything:
I'm gonna miss this organization when it's gone, aren't you?
UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: They've moved the story now, and they finally got a picture up. But get this -- it's a picture of a car similar to the getaway car. The police release a photo of the suspect, and they run a picture of a car. Not even the car -- just one like it. Pitiful.
UPDATE, 4:06 p.m.: Here's the photo, from the Portland police information site:
| Posted at 3:46 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (15)
Even more annoying considering that the story originally appeared on their breaking news blog, where it DID have the accompanying picture.
Posted by b!X | March 7, 2007 8:15 AM
Miss the O when its gone?
Not at all.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | March 7, 2007 8:56 AM
I've always been impressed by how badly the O treats it photographers.
I mean, really, if you were a professional and serious photojournalist - wouldn't you be offended or embarrassed that your employer didn't think your work warranted inclusion in their online face to the world?
Posted by Kari Chisholm | March 7, 2007 11:05 AM
I suspect, Kari, that this is yet another of the many and endless problems with the software Advance Internet uses to publish their affiliated newspaper content online, and not a Theo editorial decision.
Posted by b!X | March 7, 2007 11:27 AM
Now the story page is completely blank. They must have moved it. What a disaster area.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 7, 2007 2:38 PM
What I'm wondering about is why they don't already have the alleged owner/driver of the car used in the getaway. It's a "Sunset Orange" 2005 or later Corvette convertible. As a Corvette owner for a number of years; I can say with authority that the number of cars with this paint color is small. There were probably less than 2,000 cars in this color sold nationwide in the past 2+ years. And few in Oregon or Washington. Don't these people ever check DMV records?
Posted by Dave A. | March 7, 2007 3:11 PM
Don't these people ever check DMV records?
I've wondered the exact same thing. It sounds like quite a distinctive car as well, not like a 1999 Maxima or something. You'd think someone would have either seen it by now, or would have recalled seeing it at a neighbor's house.
Posted by Dave J. | March 7, 2007 3:23 PM
I agree, how many orange Corvettes could there be? Perhaps the shooter was not from around here. I haven't heard anything about a license plate -- even a state on the plate.
As far as the DMV angle goes, I'll bet that agency doesn't get all the way down to "burnt orange" in its color listings. Does it even have "orange"? Or would this get classified as "brown" or "red"? If it goes in the books as red, well, there are lots of red Corvettes.
I remember the refs in high school would always call our team "red," even though our jerseys were a maroon that was closer to violet.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 7, 2007 3:28 PM
They have a surveillance camera photo of the guy in the print edition. It isn't the best photo, but if someone knows the guy it might trigger something.
I also saw they were offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to a conviction. If they guy is out there shooting people in the head over the relatively small amount of cash at a small grocery store on Sunday afternoon, I seriously doubt that $1,000 is much of an incentive for one of his associates to put their neck on the line in making the decision to turn him in. A reward of 10K or 15K sounds more like it.
Posted by Usual Kevin | March 7, 2007 3:55 PM
Not that it excuses the site from not running the suspect photo, but that "look-alike" car photo isn't something the paper or the website came up with. It's also something released by the police, along with the suspect photo.
Posted by b!X | March 7, 2007 5:19 PM
"I'll bet that agency doesn't get all the way down to "burnt orange" in its color listings" I suspect this is correct. But I bet that the manufacturer has the vin #'s for all of the burnt orange convertible Corvettes out there. From there they could cross reference to DMV data bases to narrow down the potential suspects. I have no idea if law enforcement has this kind of capability though. As stated earlier we have to be talking about a few thousand vehicles, and it seems feasible on the face of things.
Posted by Usual Kevin | March 7, 2007 5:32 PM
we have to be talking about a few thousand vehicles
And if you narrow it down to West Coast registrations, it's probably a hundred or two at the most.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 7, 2007 6:37 PM
I don't see why the police aren't posting the whole video (or sequence of surveillance still photos). Sometimes the way a person moves can help identify them. Just ask this guy.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 7, 2007 6:40 PM
not a Theo editorial decision.
All decisions are editorial decisions. If the O's editor's wanted to fix it, they could have. It's not like Al Gore invented the internet yesterday.
Posted by Kari Chisholm | March 7, 2007 11:37 PM
I'm not sure there was a "decision" of any kind made here. They probably don't even realize that the picture is missing on line. I know the one guy's busy shopping for a new parking space...
Posted by Jack Bog | March 8, 2007 12:02 AM