TV News: Wrong Again

Why does TV news continue to get their information wrong? Is it laziness or they just don't care about being accurate? You would expect a journalist to do even a minor amount of research.

I'm not an apologist for Sara Jane Moore. But I am a stickler for accuracy. I continue to hope there can be some level of professionalism left in the electronic world of TV news reporters. Especially over something that is simple to check.

It is obvious to me the story about Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme's release from prison was grabbed over a wire and threw it out there with not even a small amount of fact checking? Is the newsroom so sure the wires are right?

It appears that TV news rooms takes the quick and dirty approach to secondary stuff as though it just doesn't matter whether it is accurate. After all, who cares about a background story about the "other" assassination attempt on Pres. Gerald Ford.

But, they are wrong: there was only one assassination attempt -- by Sara Jane Moore.

Fromme never intended to shoot Ford. Her intention was to wave the gun around and get arrested. Simple research will tell you that Fromme was hoping to get Charlie back in court. More corrections for the news rooms:

• Sara Jane Moore was never a Manson woman.
• She was never friends with Charles Manson in West Virginia.
• She was never a member of the SLA.
• She was not obsessed with Patti Hearst.
• Sara Jane Moore never knew Squeaky Fromme until they met in prison.

The differences between Fromme and Moore are significant. Not that one potential assassin was "better" than another. However, Fromme's actions had nothing to do with political ideology. It was about her depraved devotion with Charles Manson. Moore went to the St. Francis Hotel to kill Ford, not get her boyfriend a new trial.

What they did have in common were circumstances. If Ford had not traveled through Sacramento where Fromme was living, she would not have traveled to attack the president. As such, if Ford had not met with the World Affairs Council in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore would not have attempted to assassinate the president.

The Secret Service and Dangerous Assumptions

The Secret Service actually had Sara Jane Moore in custody just the day before her attempt. She was being questioned by the U.S. Secret Service as she had made a threat against Ford. Yet they did not hold her as they didn't see her as a danger to the president. After all she was a 45 year old woman, mother and doctor's wife. She was so far off their radar they knew she would not do anything to harm the president.

The only reason Ford was not killed is that the gun Sara Jane used that day was not her own. She bought it in haste that very morning not knowing the sight was off six inches. That is exactly what the FBI measured when they examined where the bullet had hit the cement behind Ford.

In his final remarks at Sara Jane's hearing, Judge Samuel Conti told said that her aim was true and had it not been for the faulty gun, President Ford might be dead.

The mistake by the Secret Service haunts them to this day. They are not trying to unravel the mystery of Squeaky Fromme. There is none. They are still trying, 34 years later, to unlock the events that lead Sara Jane Moore, a West Virginia girl to the sidewalk in San Francisco that day.

Geri Spieler is the author of, Taking Aim at the President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman who shot at Gerald Ford, Palgrave Macmillan.

Follow Geri Spieler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gspieler

Comments

[captcct]

Ms. Spieler, Farher to my previous post, the delay is so that the moguls can edit quickly out what they do not want the public to actually hear live! Much the same way one has an editor/sub editor/etc.

[tonyk2452]

Ms. Spieler,

I would expect a former journalist who's a self-described "stickler for accuracy" to be more specific about which TV news organizations have reported inaccurate information.

Because TV news is such an overwhelmingly prevalent news source in our society, it's hardly a public service for you to take a broad brush and indict the entire medium.

"Newspapers" such as the Weekly World News also report a lot of inaccurate information. But we expect rags like that to do so.

It matters to your readers which media outlets you are criticising. Your readers can then make a reasonable judgment about your critique. Please provide specifics, if you are going to accuse.

Thanks.

[peterg76]

Maybe there are "differences between Fromme and Moore", but waving a gun in front of the presidential Secret Service detail is a) a crime, and b) stupid.

[Geri Spieler - Huffpost Blogger]

Of course it's wrong. And yes, stupid. A gun and the president are not something one waits around to see if the person is serious....you act and fast.

Not my point...My point is that over and over and over again the story is mis-reported. I did a blog here about the "Bystander" who saved Ford's life. The man deserves to have his name used, Oliver Sipple...he was not just a bystander.

Can we get even these small thing right?