Court report sensational, not fair

I am deeply disappointed in Hearst’s purposeful distortion of emails involving Sen. Michael McLachlan in an effort to sensationalize what otherwise, by fair minded people, would have been seen as commonplace communication between two people and an honest effort by a state senator to get as much information as possible about a particular issue before casting a vote.

Hearst recently reviewed emails between Sen. Michael McLachlan and former Supreme Court Justice Ian McLachlan, who are cousins, regarding the judicial record of Justice Andrew McDonald obtained through a FOI request (“Former Supreme Court justices drew roadmap for McDonald defeat” April 22,, 2018)

Hearst took great liberty with its characterization of a handful of mundane emails, in which only public documents were shared and judicial record was discussed, to falsely and irresponsibly paint a picture of inappropriate communication.

The paper also misquoted Michael McLachlan, suggesting that another former justice, Peter Zarella, met with Michael McLachlan to discuss Justice McDonald when no such meeting ever took place.

Hearst was wrong in its reporting of a meeting and should correct the record and offer an apology for their error.

Hearst also abandoned fair reporting by including phrases such as “drew a road map” and “participated in the secret effort to defeat McDonald.”

Should every legislator call the media and tell them about every communication they’ve had or piece of information they are reviewing to prepare for a debate?

It is not out of the norm for a state senator to communicate about legislative issues with experts they know.

I am not surprised that Michael McLachlan, who is not a lawyer, would communicate with a lawyer and former justice he knows personally in order to understand judicial rules conduct and the legal principals of various cases involving a judicial nominee.

It is doing one’s due diligence to understand an issue fully and not depend solely upon one’s own limited knowledge of a subject matter before casting a vote.

Instead of straightforward reporting, Hearst editorialized communication between two respected individuals to create a “hit piece” where truth took a back seat to sensationalism.

I have always found Hearst’s papers to have a high standard for journalistic integrity, but this article did not live up to those standards by any means.