Chang: WCVB will not answer questions

by Neil W. McCabe

Channel 5's director of programming said today she will not allow any WCVB-TV personnel to answer questions from The Alewife regarding the station's coverage of the Dec. 18 car accident involving City Councilor Anthony D. Galluccio.

The Alewife is not a bona fide news entity and its editor, Neil W. McCabe, is not a bona fide journalist, said Elizabeth Chang in a phone interview this afternoon.

McCabe had asked Chang earlier in the day if someone from the station would speak on the record about its coverage of the accident and the April 28 magistrate's hearing when the request by the Boston Police to charge Galluccio with driving under the influence was denied.

Elizabeth Chang

Chang said after speaking to McCabe, she went to thealewife.com and was irate with a posting by the editor attributing a report on the WCVB-TV Web site to News Director Coleen Marren and his inference that Marren was surprised that Galluccio was still a candidate for state senate even though the seat's current owner, State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios, D, Cambridge, had decided to leave the race for Middlesex County District Attorney and seek re-election.

In addition to instructing her employees not to speak to The Alewife, Chang demanded the posting be taken down immediately and warned McCabe that she would task individuals at the station to monitor paper's Web site for any mention of WCVB.

She also said the use of Marren's picture was unauthorized.

McCabe's response

When I spoke to Chang this morning, I told her I was trying to resolve conflicting media reports about the Galluccio case and ask questions about Channel 5's news decisions.  While the report from WCVB.com had no byline, it seemed natural to me that news director would not allow a posting on her Web site that made her uncomfortable.

The posting had an excerpt from the report with the words "even though" in bold with a note that that the emphasis was added.  There was also a hot link to the actual WCVB report, so the reader could make up his own mind.

In our first conversation, I told her that I wanted to find out who actually wrote the Web reports, since there was no byline.

Because Chang threatened me with legal action if I did not take the posting down, I took it down out of fear.  She raised her voice and I have no legal budget.

This is what I wanted to know about the station's reporting of the Great Galluccio Accident Case:

1.   Why were Galluccio's lawyers identified as "high-powered, politically connected," but another lawyer present, David White-Lief was not?  Is it simply because when you represent a sitting city councilor you are thus? Or was there another point being made?

2.   Why didn't WCVB report the reasons that the magistrate found Peter Manderino and Edward A. Prisby were not credible witnesses? Or that the police officer's account of their drunkeness?

3.   Why did the station report that "cameras and most reporters were barred from the hearing," when that is the standard every day practice not to allow media in such hearings?

4.   Why didn't it report that it was Galluccio, who gave permission for a Boston Globe reporter to witness the hearing and take notes.

5.   Why didn't it report that Galluccio waived his HEPA privacy rights to allow the EMT to refresh his memory by reading ambulance log entries.

6.   Why did it report that the second EMT was not asked to testify, but agreed with the first--if, in fact, he was a no-show to the hearing?

7.   If the testimony of the EMT was inconclusive, why do you quote his statements in the December police report, but not his own log entry from the accident that Galluccio's eyes were normal and he was not impaired?

8.   Why didn't the station report that Manderino, whose brand-new Infiniti the city councilor hit, tackled Galluccio and held him on the ground before the police arrived?

9.   Why didn't Janet Wu contact Galluccio before ambushing him on camera as he climbed down the stairs at City Hall?  Hadn't she been working on the story for two weeks and had sworn statements from others involved?

10. What are your journalism criteria for the authorizing an ambush or for camping out in front of an individual's home?

11. Why didn't the station report that both the EMT and Christopher Ryder, Manderino's passenger, testified that Galluccio walked and spoke normally and that he climbed into the ambulance door, three-feet up, without trouble.

12. What failure to follow "proper procedure" did the magistrate cite as the reason he dismissed the charges?

13. Are you concerned that Manderino told the magistrate he was not seeking financial damages, but after the hearing his lawyer announced they were seeking damages? No bells? No alarms?

Comments

[M L Ziegler]

What ever happened to Julie O"Clair???? Loved her with her husband whats up?? Otherwise I love WCVB.