| |
Somewhat Changing Tides
Heidi MacDonald's THE BEAT also commented yesterday on Guy LeCharles Gonzalez statement at Buzzscope.
Heidi excerpts the revealing update (noted here 4 days ago) in Michael Dean's excellent (and mostly ignored) coverage of the Taki Soma/Charles Brownstein controversy, indicating the re-opening of a police investigation into the incident. Perhaps appropriately titled Grope-gate Update (intermittently Mid-Ohio-gate) - arguably, not merely for the association with mass institutional cover-up and attempted protection of top executive personnel.
Heidi is concise and brief in her comment on the statement at Buzzscope:
Guy LeCharles Gonzalez writes up the results of his "investigation" at Pop Culture Shock, and the big reveal is that they aren't going to be writing about it again, since the matter will now be decided in court -- where it should have been decided all along. I've known Heidi MacDonald for several years now, as we share a presence on a closed email list-serve discussion forum for comic book creators and professionals. She's always precise, witty, and a warm-hearted peace-maker amongst a group which can sometimes engage in somewhat enthusiastic quibble over matters of grave importance to the community. Heidi also reported several supporting items about Flaming Sword activity at The Beat last year - and it's due to this special friendship and concern (and even a reciprocal endearment) that I turn her attention to the misleading appearance of journalistic sour grapes, which resonates from her comment.
The big reveal in Mr. Gonzalez' statement is not that they aren't going to be writing about it again. They haven't been writing about it anyway, since coming under attack by the comics press for initially breaking the story, in which Heidi herself participated rigorously. The big reveal in this statement is that Guy LeCharles Gonzalez and Buzzscope stand by Ronee Garcia Bourgeois' reporting of the incident, take to task the industry press for criticism of her journalistic abilities, and inform us that several other victims of Charles Brownstein's behavior are awaiting on the sidelines, prepared to testify against him, in the eventuality that Taki Soma's effort to renew the police investigation reaches the courts.
That is perhaps the subjective, but nevertheless truly big reveal of the Buzzscope statement.
However, there is another misleading appearance of journalistic sour grapes, possibly one which borders on a mistaken appearance of hypocrisy, in Heidi's statement. Based on her previous commentary, it may be slightly disingenuous to support the notion the the matter will now be decided in court -- where it should have been decided all along.
If such is the case, Heidi, and I truly believe you feel this way, perhaps this is a good time to reflect on the manner in which you also contributed to the public admonishment of Ms. Bourgeois and Buzzscope, when it was revealed that the accused in the incident is a good friend, whom you've known since the age of 15. Your coverage of the story, helping others give the appearance of a cover-up, and subliminal condemnation of the victim in the court of public opinion, as your archives show, is extensive.
I believe everyone who read the above items remembers your transition from open support for the victim, in the first - to the condemnation of the principal figures and those who initially reported the story, in the last - when the identity of the accused was revealed as a long-time acquaintance with whom you share a special friendship. For the sake of the appearance of journalistic integrity, Heidi, which I know you possess in great abundance, and otherwise display with incontrovertible grace - perhaps an open reflection on the above, with your readers, will help wipe away the perplexity raised by your most recent comment.
Permalink
Posted: 4:41 PM EST
|
|
