As some have noticed, the Ole Seagull has recently started doing some reporting in addition to writing a weekly column. Strange as it may seem, the major guiding percepts for criminal investigators, reporters, columnists, and just about anyone who wants or needs more than conclusions were all set forth and summarized in the first line of a poem contained in a short story by Rudyard Kipling. He wrote “I keep six honest serving-men, they taught me all I knew; their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.”
The Ole Seagull first learned them just about 40 years ago as he went through the basic law enforcement training course that all U.S. Treasury Agents went through and they have served him well. Yet, the six are not equally weighted in terms of use and, in some situations, not all will be used. The Who, Where, When, and What are pretty basic factual determinations in the majority of situations. The How and Why of a given situation is more an art than a science and are susceptible to opinion and conjecture. It is a necessary part of every investigation and an opinion columnist’s world, but not necessarily every reporting situation.
As an example, as a reporter, the Ole Seagull, in reporting on what was said at a particular meeting, wrote a news article in the July 20 edition of this paper entitled, “Branson alderman warns city administrator and attorney about erroneous information,” which is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Local News.”
The article reported that, at a July 9 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, city attorney Paul Link responded to a request made by Mayor Raeanne Presley for information regarding the area within Branson Landing where beer purchased at a particular kiosk could legally be consumed. It quoted Link as saying, “In a nutshell, as has been stated here many times in public meetings, Branson Landing is private property. The liquor license that allows that kiosk [Chicago Hotdogs] to sell beer by the fountains extends for the Branson Landing property and it’s completely legal for someone to buy a beer at that kiosk and walk on the Landing because its private property.”
From a basic reporting point of view there was the Who, What, Where, and When. No one asked Why or How Link had reached that conclusion and, if history is any witness, had it been the previous elected leaders ship of Branson, as it was constituted before its change during the April elections, Link’s statement would have been accepted as “gospel and that would have been the end of it.
The news article reported that, at a board of alderman’s workshop held on July 17, after there was some indication questioning the basis for the conclusions contained in Links July 9 statement, that the following exchange took place between Link and city alderman, Stephen Marshall starting with a question asked by Marshall. “So Paul, how do you tell us, tell me, that it’s the whole thing that was licensed?” Link responded, “That was my understanding and I think, the city’s understanding.” Marshall then asked, “Who gave you that understanding?” Link replied, “That has been my understanding since I came down here and the reason why I, honestly, didn’t call liquor control and get the exact boundaries was because it was private property.”
The honest serving-men named What, When, Where and Who have done their job and the reader has the facts. However, the columnist in an Ole Seagull has to ask two questions.
How could a city attorney, or any other professional for that matter, respond to the mayors request and tell the board, as a matter of fact, what Link did during the Jul 9 meeting without having the professionalism to at least have done the basic research to determine that what they were saying was true? Why would anyone give anymore credence to the opinion of a person who would do such a thing than they would give to the person who sent the Branson Namegate letter of Sep. 15, 2006?
“But Seagull, what if he was right?” Does it really make any difference?
