The story of Lee Kent’s disappearance is a bit mind-boggling to say the least. The confusion deepens even more as the media coverage of the event comes to fault with the ever-changing facts.
How can a “37-foot Boston Whaler” shrink after four days? The statements published in the articles are vague. The coverage of the story would benefit the public far more if the facts were precise and detailed.
The Mexican newspaper that found the alleged boat of Kent was never credited in the Sept. 4 article from the PNJ. Whether the launching location was Orange Beach, Al. or Little Sabine Bay off of Pensacola Beach, it was unclear at first until a correction was published. The progression of the first article from Aug. 31 to the obituary fails to be accurate for the most part.
There is so much left unsaid. Holes exist where statements could have been mentioned that were made by the rest of his family or by possible witnesses. Linking and tying the evidence chronologically would have helped the reader grasp a “truth” about the events. On the other hand, it can be difficult to search for the “truth” about an event when all you can rely on is what has been said.
Journalists cannot always expect to see every incident firsthand. They must find the “truth” by doing investigative research and through hearsay under such circumstances. The voice of critics and readers can sometimes aid in keeping the facts straight once the articles are published.
No comments:
Post a Comment