Hey, look! I posted something on my blog.

Who is Larry Washington? Is he an honest citizen, a former gang member who has gone straight but is now being unfairly targeted by police? Or is he a still-active drug dealer who dabbles in arson and abusing women?

If you read the Illinois Times, you’re more likely to believe the former. If you’re an SJ-R subscriber, you probably lean towards the shady version. And if you read both, you’re probably confused how two articles on the same subject and published a mere three days apart could paint such a different picture of the same individual.

Let me say that the only thing I know about Washington is from what I read from the two stories. I don’t have any insider information and I’ve never discussed his story with any one who has or claims to have any down low. Let me also say that I believe that both stories are factually correct. So the discrepancy arises from how the facts are presented, what facts are left out, and what facts are simply not known.

It would be pointless for me, and probably for most of you, to speculate on which story more accurately portrays Mr. Washington’s character. But what I do think we are qualified to discuss is whether the two media outlets have a responsibility to the citizens that they both serve to follow-up on their stories based on what the other has written.

For instance, the IT uses the word “fire” five times in its article, three of them in reference to former SPD detectives, but it does not mention the suspicious fires that Washington has been linked to in various ways. It also doesn’t mention the accusations of abuse from former girlfriends. Perhaps the IT investigated these aspects of his story and decided that they lacked merit and would unfairly taint him. But if this is the case, should they now publicly report this, knowing that many of their readers also read the SJ-R?

The SJ-R doesn’t quote Alderman McNeil or any of the other sources who vouched for Washington’s character in the IT article. Should they now seek comment from them?

I realize that we are talking about two different stories, even though the subject of each is the same. The IT story focused on the possibility that Washington was set up in a drug bust. The SJ-R story focused on the suspicious fires that may be linked to him. The reporting doesn’t contradict each other.

But in my reading of the stories, I did get the impression, a vibe if you will, that I was supposed to feel a certain way about Washington. And these vibes did contradict. The IT seemed to want me to pity him as a victim of a roguish police force. The SJ-R seemed to want me to be outraged that a convicted felon was getting away with more crimes. I can’t say if it was the reporters’ intentions to elicit these emotions, but I doubt that I am alone in forming these impressions.

This isn’t really that uncommon of an occurrence. If you read the New York Times you’ll get a decidedly different impression of how the president is performing than you would if you read the Washington Times. Even if you skip the editorials and columnists and stick to the fact-based reporting, there is still an editorial opinion being communicated.

What makes the Washington stories interesting is that you would think that the question of whether a local man, who isn’t surrounded by consultants and PR hacks, is flouting the law or is being persecuted by law enforcement would by less subjective. I’m not criticizing either story; I just want to know what to think