Comment

No, when a writer uses a line like:

Politicians and powerful governmental employees can confirm or deny, too. And, in this case, a sheriff’s office may be pushing hard to keep any remaining evidence in the Gacy case underground forever.

…that is not “covering a story from both sides.”

That’s like writing an article about Obama being a native-born U.S. citizen and having a line that says “In this case, a president may be pushing hard to keep any remaining evidence of his true birthplace hidden forever.”

Such a phrase clearly establishes that the writer of the story has a position to push. Which is fine – as long as it’s made clear that the story is not objective journalism, but advocacy.

8 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims

Comment

The only way to definitively prove whether or not there is any oil in the ground on a given property is to drill a well. But oil companies don’t just drill wells everywhere – that costs a ton of money and time. Instead, they study each property to figure out whether it’s worth drilling. Unless there’s significant scientific evidence of oil, they don’t drill.

The sheriff’s department has apparently determined that there is no significant scientific evidence of any bodies buried on that property and therefore it is not worth the money and time to dig there. The only rebuttal is one person who disagrees based on his subjective interpretation of data. The author of this story has tried to use that fact to create some sort of half-baked cover-up conspiracy, alleging incompetence or wrongdoing on the part of a law enforcement agency with no evidence at all to support that claim.

8 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims 1 reply

Comment

I also note that the only source who says the search was done wrong is a direct business competitor of the person who did the search – a clear conflict of interest that screams “I just want to trash this other guy’s business and make him look bad.”

That conflict really should have been spelled out more clearly in the article.

8 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims 2 replies 2 recommends

Comment

But there’s already been a search at that site and there’s nothing buried there. Unless you buy into some bizarre cockamamie cover-up conspiracy theory. The sheriff’s department examined the property, found nothing and moved on.

8 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims 1 recommend

Comment

Shouldn’t the headline be “purported lost victims” because there isn’t really any evidence that there are any “lost victims”, only rumors and speculation?

8 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims 1 reply 2 recommends