Sometimes hasty writing requires corrections

One recent evening as my wife, kids and mother-in-law took a

cruise along Back Bay Drive, we got an inadvertent lesson in the

responsibility, or what some would call irresponsibility, of the

press.

“This is the road where that guy was killed by the paintball

shooters,” I told my mother-in-law. “You remember that story, right?”

Of course she did. Yeah, the paintball killers. Whatever happened

with that, she asked?

Well, actually, I had to correct myself, we thought he was killed

by paintball snipers, but it turns out we had it all wrong, I told

her.

And now that’s something I need to make sure all of our readers

know as well.

The guy I was talking about was one Gary Holdren, a Park Newport

resident who tragically lost his life April 9, two weeks after being

discovered unconscious on the popular bayside road on which joggers,

bikers and inline skaters can be seen daily.

The original story, as told to us by the Newport Beach police,

went like this: Holdren, wearing inline skates, was found on the road

knocked near lifeless with severe injuries to his eye and head.

Splattered about him was paint from a paintball gun. Police cited

witnesses who reported that three “youthful males” were seen in the

area with paintball guns.

Pretty clear evidence that paintball shooters were the culprits,

right?

Our first headline on March 26 said as much: “Paintball assault

leaves skater critical.”

Subsequent stories and columns went on to surmise that indeed

paintball shooters were lurking in the bushes of the Back Bay, firing

at unsuspecting targets.

Bigger newspapers picked up the story as did television stations.

Rumors swirled that Holdren was a victim of either a prank gone

awry or some evildoers bent on pelting people with paint, evildoers

or pranksters who had not owned up to their crime.

But slowly, the paintball story started to change as coroner

officials downplayed the significance of a paintball strike and

instead proposed that Holdren had been injured by falling while

inline skating and then striking the back of his head, causing trauma

to his skull and brain.

Finally, on Aug. 9, four months to the day of Holdren’s death, we

finished our reporting with the story that concluded: “Paintball

pellets not the cause of death.’’ At least that’s what the coroner is

telling us now.

We still get letters to this day, urging the paintball shooters to

come clean and admit to their crime -- even though it’s possible

there never were any paintball shooters at all.

One of my favorite editors has a very apropos line in which he

says, “you can’t unstir the drink.”

The Holdren paintball case is a classic example of that. The drink

has been stirred and there’s little chance to keep things from being

mixed up.

Newspapers, by their nature, have to stir the drink. We report

things in a hurry, sometimes with little facts and without the luxury

of taking the time to double and triple check sources. We need

contention, controversy and stories worth reading.

Isn’t it much more exciting to write a story about a guy getting

ambushed by paintball shooters than if he simply slipped and fell on

his head?

Before we get cast as the sole purveyor of bad facts, keep in mind

the Daily Pilot’s not the only one to do this.

Some readers may recognize the name Steve J. Hatfill.

He’s the scientist who some in the media have surmised is the

culprit behind last fall’s anthrax letters that killed five people

and made 13 sick and struck terror into the hearts of Americans fresh

off the most cataclysmic event of our lifetime on Sept. 11.

Hatfill has never been charged with the crime. He has not even

been named by the FBI as a suspect. But years will go by and his name

will come up and many will just say, “he’s the anthrax guy.’’

The cases are many. Richard Jewell, the security guard who was

wrongfully suspected by the media of the being the bomber of the

Atlanta Olympic Games, is one glaring example.

So what’s the answer? In the Daily Pilot’s case, many readers here

will probably know the truth about the paintball case just because we

continued to follow it. And for that, I give my staff writers and

editors a lot of credit.

But what of those who just watched the story unfold on television?

Have you seen any of those TV channels report that the story was

wrong?

I think not.

The answer is that we have to be more thorough. Journalists aren’t

exactly up there on the list of those with the most trusted jobs in

America.

We need to return to an era in which we are skeptical of

information. We need to make sure that we don’t report something as

fact, or couch it as fact, unless we know it to be so.

That’s not easy to do sometimes, but you have my vow that we will

do our best to make that happen.

I’m eager to hear your suggestions.

* TONY DODERO is the editor. He can be reached at (949) 574-4258

or via e-mail at tony.dodero@latimes.com.