>> RANT WARNING <<
I mention the following because this thread is delving into "information" gleaned from apparent news reports or a documentary about Jock Sturges.
The news is a daily dose of poison.
I'm a "card carrying" member of the media, in addition to practicing law. On occasion, I research for a reporter/anchor at CBS2 in Los Angeles. As well, I've had plenty of cases in the news. I've dealt with a lot of different newsrooms in both capacities.
The point being - the news screws it up quite frequently. Further, the story is frequently written well before the reporter asks the first question. I've been on both sides - could do no wrong and could do no right. They write on the basis of what the consumer apparently demands. It's easy to beat up on the "bad guy."
Don't believe everything you hear about Jock Sturges and a relationship with a 14 year old until you get the facts from a reliable source. That's a heavy accusation and the reported "facts" are likely skewed toward making the situation look worse.
It's hard to put into words, but when you see the "news" inside-out it really changes your opinion of the information that passes for news. Many - if not most - general assignment reporters have zero background on their subject and are given no resources to obtain background. It's (1) get an angle, (2) get a clip, (3) get your B-roll, (4) package, (5) transmit.
It has become patently unreliable.
I'm looking for a primary source on the relationship issue. The best I could find is this L.A. Times article:
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/news/mn-26778
The article reads as an indictment. This is the L.A. Times and you would think there might be some balance. There is none. It's pure pandering. Where's the development on the relationship? When did it commence? What made it intimate? At what stage? How long did it go on for?
Here's an L.A. Times reporter that has access to the two very candid individuals involved in the relationship and FAILS TO ASK THE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS!!!!!!
Instead of developing that part of the story, they call in - of course - the "First Amendment Experts." The purpose of this is "formula writing." (1) Setting up the indefensible behavior then (2) calling in the experts to show how the bad guys will get away with their indefensible behavior. This equals reader rage and "way to go L.A. Times" in reassuring us that this is a screwed up world and there is no sense in trying to understand things.
You want to really take this thread for a loop?
June 2000: I appeared on behalf of O.J. Simpson. This was an attempt to secure telephone records which seriously called into question the time frame of the murders.
January 2003: I defended John Quigley when he sat in an ancient oak tree in Santa Clarita for 73 days, trying to save it from the bulldozer.
2003 - 2006: Numerous local "press cases" - one a defense verdict where I was the good guy, another locker room assault where I was the bad guy.
February 2007: DNA in the Anna Nicole Smith case - Los Angeles litigation.
August 2007: Restraining order against self-proclaimed pedophile, Jack McClellan.
By now, I can predict on each and every occasion what will get written. It makes me sick. In the O.J. matter, there was a seriously viable argument. The press would not have any part of it. In Quigley, we could do no wrong. I could have showed up in a tu-tu and the press would have clapped. Anna Nicole - sick drivel of a rumor hunger press. Jack McClellan - could do no wrong - it was just pile on the bad guy.
Now, I picked up a Hells Angels case and, again, I'm the bad guy. (Whatever.)
I will tell you from experience, not only is the press NOT going to go to bat for a guy like Sturges, they won't even provide balanced reporting. This is because producers send their minions to the field with an agenda. If the minion wants to keep their job, they bring back the content the producer sent them out to get.
I was once doing an interview with a CNN crew. CNN sent out Beavis and Butthead to get some roll during the McClellan case. After Butthead figured out there was no tape in the camera, Beavis launched into the same exact question three times. I finally had to say, "Would you like me to formulate a question you could ask me so I can respond?"
She said, "Yeah, that would be great."
The L.A. Times article essentially accused Sturges of producing child erotica, if not child porn. This is patently false. But, they're okay with it. They know that no one is going to go to bat for the guy, and anyone who does will be discredited in short order.
I guess I can say I'm pretty upset. I'm not in favor of 14 year olds having relationships with people twice their age. However, what were the circumstances? Further, lats say it's a "worst case scenario - does that set the standard by which his work is to be measured?
If I want erotica, I can always go to my local supermarket, where my 14 year old can read about "orgasm faces" on the cover of Cosmo and I can get the latest dose of Brad and Jen.
What a sophisticated society we live in.
.
