Reporter pleads no contest to trespassing

[Paper Trail]

By DAVID BARRON
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6421071.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:1a616bc 6-c925-49ef-837f-233eedcb9559#none)

KTRK (Channel 13) reporter Wayne Dolcefino will serve nine months of probation-like supervision after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor trespassing charge in Austin County.

Dolcefino, 52, was sentenced by Austin County Court at Law Judge Daniel Leedy to deferred adjudication, which means he will not have an official conviction if he successfully completes his unmonitored “community supervision” and pays his $500 fine and $330 court costs.

He was accused of trespassing Jan. 8, 2008, on the Austin County ranch of Houston architect Leroy Hermes, said Austin County Attorney Travis Koehn.

“(Dolcefino) was videotaping at the entrance of Mr. Hermes’ property in Austin County. The gate had a keypad electronic lock, and they messed with that to the point that it opened up, and then went onto the property and videotaped it and then left,” Koehn said.

There was no damage to the property or to the gate, Koehn added.

Channel 13 in February 2008 aired a report detailing what Dolcefino described as the “small world” of Harris County officials and of contractors involved in county construction projects. The report included a reference to Hermes’ Hat Creek Ranch in Austin County and noted the success of Hermes and his architectural firm in obtaining contracts for county projects, including the Reliant Center complex.

A Channel 13 spokesman said the station had no comment on the case. Dolcefino, who was represented by Houston attorney Mike DeGeurin, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Chronicle reporter Mary Flood contributed to this report.

david.barron@chron.com

[Clever Login Name]

Why does he still have a job?

[wx or not]

Doesn't Journalism 101 tell you never to be part of the story?

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Doesn't Journalism 101 tell you never to be part of the story?
Technically, yes. But I think 101 was cut due to cutbacks.

[s'news]

Wayne is often part of the story.

[Another side]

Why does he still have a job?

Perhaps his body of work over the past 20-plus years mattered to those making the decisions?

(And I say that not knowing anything about his body of work. It's strictly offered as a possible answer to your question.)

[Clever Login Name]

Perhaps. But the perception now is that he'll stoop to criminal levels to pursue a story ... whether the public cares about that, I don't know, but I'd think his reputation in that community has been badly tarnished.

Then again, maybe no one cares. Which is why hardly no one is watching t-v news any more.

[Fake Post]

A similar thing happened to an Atlanta tv reporter years ago and I believe he was fired.

The question is this...

Is it permissable to break the law in order to show someone else who's breaking the law more than the reporter is?

[Spike]

Is it permissable to break the law in order to show someone else who's breaking the law more than the reporter is?

No.

On the other hand, this is misdemeanor trespassing we're talking about. I'm surprised he was charged at all. I've seen reporters and photogs do a not insignificant amount of trespassing over the years, and I can't ever remember any of them being charged.

It is trespassing if you bypass a closed gate or climb over a fence, even if the property is not posted. But I wonder if he even knew that. I've worked with plenty of people who simply didn't know what the law is regarding trespassing. They ask, "Why is it trespassing to go into this guy's front yard, when it's not trespassing to ring the doorbell of the house down the street with no fence?" Would you fire the guy for making an honest mistake? It's not like many stations are paying for legal seminars for their news departments these days.

And besides that, had he not been arrested, would the news management there have questioned his actions? I doubt it. They more likely would have patted him on the back for being aggressive. Management usually only gets upset about these kinds of things when you get caught.

No, you shouldn't break the law to get a story, but this is really not a big deal. It's not quite the level of stealing.

[Clever Login Name]

It is trespassing if you bypass a closed gate or climb over a fence, even if the property is not posted. But I wonder if he even knew that.

The prosecutor is quoted as saying they "messed with" the electronic keypad until they got the gate to open. To me, that's the equivalent of picking a lock to get in. How could he NOT have known what he was doing?

[/QUOTE] Management usually only gets upset about these kinds of things when you get caught. [/QUOTE}

Agreed. Which makes them management.

[/QUOTE} No, you shouldn't break the law to get a story, but this is really not a big deal. It's not quite the level of stealing.[/QUOTE]

That's like being a little bit pregnant. You do something unethical (or in this case criminal) ... even a little bit unethical ... it's still unethical. And that's not what journalists are supposed to be about. Even t-v "journalists".

[Spike]

The prosecutor is quoted as saying they "messed with" the electronic keypad until they got the gate to open. To me, that's the equivalent of picking a lock to get in. How could he NOT have known what he was doing?

Actually, I was wondering about that, because that's a little vague. They "messed with" it? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean they jiggled it a little and it came open? Does that mean they shocked it with the capacitor out of the flash in a disposable camera? Does that mean the gate was actually left ajar, but the homeowner swears he locked it? Does that mean the journalist is a master entry code breaker?

The article says they did no damage to the lock. I'm not sure what exactly you can do to "mess with" an electronic lock that wouldn't damage it. What exactly did he do?

That's like being a little bit pregnant. You do something unethical (or in this case criminal) ... even a little bit unethical ... it's still unethical. And that's not what journalists are supposed to be about. Even t-v "journalists".

Agreed, it's unethical to trespass. But was this particular offense worth getting fired over? It's also unethical in news to stage a shot by directing your subject. Should someone who does that be fired? It's not all black and white.

[Max Schumacher]

Trust me, if "Wayne-O" hasn't been fired by this point in his career (Sylvester Turner mess, anyone?) he's bulletproof.
Or too damn close.

[Clever Login Name]

I also thought that "messed with" language was not just vague but unseemly for a prosecutor to use in describing what happened. What self-respecting lawyer talks like that?

[s'news]

Dolcefino is seen by KTRK management as a ratings draw for his investigative pieces. And he gets a lot of leeway on that front.

My complaint is that he often has a decent story, but then tries to blow it up into something bigger. He writes and talks like he has the story of the century, even when he doesn't.

Dolcefino has also been known to make mistakes, but not correct them.

In the Sylvester Turner story mentioned earlier, he put together an inflammatory story about a mayoral candidate that ran just days before an election. The story was blown into more than it was. Turner, who lost a close election, perhaps because of the story, successfully sued for libel, but the judgment was overturned on appeal, as is often the case with such things.

[Clever Login Name]

Thanks for the background, s'news.

[Delta Dawn]

Dolcefino is seen by KTRK management as a ratings draw for his investigative pieces. And he gets a lot of leeway on that front.
You mean they're more interested in the sensational than the responsible? Wow.

[s'news]

Thanks for the background, s'news.

You're welcome.

The thing about Dolcefino, in my opinion, is that he'd be a great reporter if they reined him in a bit. He's a nice fellow and people like to work with him. He gets some good stories. He works hard.

[TVMattNYC]

Actually, I was wondering about that, because that's a little vague. They "messed with" it? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean they jiggled it a little and it came open? Does that mean they shocked it with the capacitor out of the flash in a disposable camera? Does that mean the gate was actually left ajar, but the homeowner swears he locked it? Does that mean the journalist is a master entry code breaker?

The article says they did no damage to the lock. I'm not sure what exactly you can do to "mess with" an electronic lock that wouldn't damage it. What exactly did he do?



Agreed, it's unethical to trespass. But was this particular offense worth getting fired over? It's also unethical in news to stage a shot by directing your subject. Should someone who does that be fired? It's not all black and white.

Who cares what he did with the lock?? He SAW the lock and deliberately disabled it.

And not only is it unethical to trespass ... it's ILLEGAL. And while staging a shot might also be unethical, it's not ILLEGAL. Yes, breaking the law while on the company dime is a fireable offense with most every employer, regardless of industry.

[Spike]

And not only is it unethical to trespass ... it's ILLEGAL. And while staging a shot might also be unethical, it's not ILLEGAL. Yes, breaking the law while on the company dime is a fireable offense with most every employer, regardless of industry.

It's also illegal to exceed the speed limit on a public highway. Should a teevee employee be fired for getting a speeding ticket?

[Fake Post]

It's also illegal to exceed the speed limit on a public highway. Should a teevee employee be fired for getting a speeding ticket?

How about DUI that killed someone?

[Spike]

How about DUI that killed someone?

How about it?

[TVMattNYC]

How about it?

Yes and yes.

[Clever Login Name]

It's also illegal to exceed the speed limit on a public highway. Should a teevee employee be fired for getting a speeding ticket?

Were they in a company vehicle at the time? Or is there a specific policy that punishes employees for any moving violations because it results in higher insurance premiums for the employer?

It's up to the employer, of course ... and in my shop, Wayne D. would have been gone after that stunt. I don't care how good he is ... if some six-month-on-the-job newbie had done the same thing, they'd have been fired already.

[wx or not]

It's also illegal to exceed the speed limit on a public highway. Should a teevee employee be fired for getting a speeding ticket?
I don't care for zero-tolerance questions. Whatever happened to reason and looking at both sides of a problem?

[Spike]

I don't care for zero-tolerance questions. Whatever happened to reason and looking at both sides of a problem?

Exactly.

Most places wouldn't fire a photog for getting a single speeding ticket. A speeding ticket is a misdemeanor. This trespassing charge was a misdemeanor, and we don't even know the whole story. I don't see how people can call for someone's termination over a minor incident when they don't even know what the incident was.

[Clever Login Name]

The ethics of it bothers me more than the criminality. It's a minor legal infraction ... serious ethical one.

And, as I said before, it's up to the individual station to decide where its level of tolerance lies as to any of these behaviors.

[Spike]

It's a minor legal infraction ... serious ethical one.

Have you thought about why it's unethical?

[Clever Login Name]

Have you thought about why it's unethical?

Sure ... because he committed a minor criminal offense. That doesn't (for me) equate to a minor ethical breach. He broke the law during his reporting of the story. To me, that begs the question "What else is he willing to do?".

[Spike]

Sure ... because he committed a minor criminal offense.

A misdemeanor, like speeding. Is speeding unethical?

Also, consider that if you have a confidential source, it is illegal to refuse to reveal that source if ordered to do so by a federal judge. Does that make it unethical to protect your source?

[Clever Login Name]

The legal system has criminalized one aspect of the journalist's code of ethics ... maintaining the anonymity of a source. So, if it comes to abiding by the ethical code or breaking the law, I'd leave that up to the individual. Trespassing and/or breaking and entering are not part of that ethics code.

[Spike]

The legal system has criminalized one aspect of the journalist's code of ethics ... maintaining the anonymity of a source.

Actually, no. The legal system did not criminalize maintaining the anonymity of a source. It criminalized refusing to comply with a lawful court order. I don't think the code of ethics says anything about refusing to comply with court orders.

It's really quite simple. If illegality of an action made it unethical (as you claim with trespassing), then refusing to name a source under court order would also be unethical. Since violating such a court order is apparently not unethical, then it cannot be true that the illegality of an action makes it unethical. Something else must be causing it to be unethical.

So now we're back to the earlier question. Why is trespassing unethical? It can't be because it's illegal, because you just established that illegality in itself does not make an act unethical.

[Clever Login Name]

You're splitting hairs. It's illegal to refuse to comply with a court order ... the court order being that you reveal your source(s). The SPJ code of ethics says journalists should protect the anonymity of their sources ... but, as I said, if it comes to protecting a source or going to jail, that's an individual's choice to make. I wouldn't have any problem with someone breaking the law by choosing to be ethical. It's people like Wayne D. who broke the law by doing something UNethical who would be toast.

[commercial hack]

Wayne has also done a lot of stories that cause results and changes in policy. He just finished a series on the amount of money spent by administrators, at the Univ. of Houston, on alcohol for "school business".
Yes, Wayne does overdo it a bit, his main focus is watching how the local gov is spending tax dollars. He has won many emmy awards for his investigations.

[The Mockingbird]

Let's also remember that the reporter hasn't admitted guilt for trespassing. :)

[Spike]

I wouldn't have any problem with someone breaking the law by choosing to be ethical.

But I thought you said that it was unethical to break the law. At least, the reason you gave for trespassing being unethical was that it was illegal. If illegality makes something unethical, then how could someone break the law by choosing to be ethical? Breaking the law itself would make the act unethical.

We end up back at the same place. If you're right that violating a court order to protect sources is ethical, then it's not true that illegality makes something unethical. If illegality doesn't make something unethical, then trespassing can't be unethical just because it's illegal. If trespassing is unethical, there has to be some other reason for it.

So why is trespassing unethical?

The SPJ code of ethics says journalists should protect the anonymity of their sources ... but, as I said, if it comes to protecting a source or going to jail, that's an individual's choice to make.

The SPJ's Code of Ethics says nothing about illegal acts. Nor does it ever mention trespassing. The SPJ Code doesn't seem to make trespassing unethical.

So trespassing is not unethical simply because it's illegal, and it's not unethical simply because the SPJ says so. So... Why exactly is trespassing unethical?

[The Mockingbird]

Ha ha, that's just mean, Spike, you painted him into a philosophical corner.

I'll throw him a line though.

If ethics are equal to the law, then the ethical thing to do would be to only promise a source anonymity on the condition that it doesn't go against a court order.

The alternative is, of course, admitting that Spike is right and your view was an oversimplification because you hadn't really thought about the issue.

[Clever Login Name]

Why exactly is trespassing unethical?

Take your pick ... from SPJ's Code of Ethics:

-"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

The undercover part is doubtful, but surreptitious? Sure. If you want to argue the video was crucial to the story and couldn't be obtained any other way, was it explained to the viewer how they got that video? I'd like to know ... but I doubt the reporter track included "We broke into Mr. X's locked gate in order to obtain this footage ..."


-"Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility."

Was this an activity that compromised the reporter's integrity or damaged his credibility? I'd say so ... and I'm willing to bet so would a lot of viewers.

—"Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others."

If the story was about a local politician convicted of a misdemeanor offense like trespassing (with the same kind of details as this one), do you think the media would avoid that? Would voters/viewers understandably let that color their view of the person?

Again, if I'm the boss, I'm not firing someone who breaks the law because they're trying to abide by ethical guidelines of protecting a source. I do fire someone who pulls a stunt like this.

[Spike]

-"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

Nope.

Surreptitious means he was doing it in a stealthy manner, trying to hide or sneak around. There's nothing in that article to suggest that he sneaked onto the property or tried to hide once he was there.

-"Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility."

You're really stretching.

It says activities. Not actions. His trespassing was an action, not an activity. If he made a hobby of trespassing on other people's property, then it would become an activity.

Think of drinking. If you have a drink, that action won't hurt you in the public eye. But routine heavy drinking is an activity that might damage your credibility.

—"Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others."

If the story was about a local politician convicted of a misdemeanor offense like trespassing (with the same kind of details as this one), do you think the media would avoid that? Would voters/viewers understandably let that color their view of the person?

This might have been a good point, except for the actual subject matter. How often does simple trespassing make the news? How often are people actually charged with trespassing? It actually doesn't happen that often. If the cops show up and the trespasser is gone, they usually don't even bother with any further action.

Thus, you can't really say that there's a double standard here, because the reverse situation is unlikely to ever happen. If some random architect trespassed on somebody's property, it's doubtful that would ever get reported. News coverage wouldn't even factor into it.

So, no, you still haven't found the part where the SPJ might consider this unethical behavior (I have, but I'm not telling where it is). The problem here isn't that you haven't found the right clause in the Code of Ethics, but that you're ready to fire the guy without even knowing why. You have now been through several different lines of reasoning trying to convict him of an ethics breach, none of which are convincing. And you still think the guy should be canned, even though you can't justify it?

[Another side]

Here we go again.

Speeding is not a misdemeanor. Speeding is a traffic infraction.

[s'news]

We all know that bustin' in is wrong.

[Spike]

We all know that bustin' in is wrong.

http://urbanprankster.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wanted.jpg
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/21/2593920234_d26968dccc.jpg

[wx or not]

Here we go again.

Speeding is not a misdemeanor. Speeding is a traffic infraction.
Okay, gang, here we go again:
Nothing is illegal;
Nothing is unethical;
Nothing is against prior convictions;
Unless you get caught.

[The Mockingbird]

We don't know the specific circumstances, so we really can't speak to the ethicality of the reporter's actions.

[BadgerWXman]

Over the last 3 minutes I have:


[x] Skimmed this thread

[x] Realized wx or not was making serious posts

[x] Decided to read thread more thoroughly due to this

[ ] Contributed to this thread

[Clever Login Name]

It says activities. Not actions. His trespassing was an action, not an activity. If he made a hobby of trespassing on other people's property, then it would become an activity.

Think of drinking. If you have a drink, that action won't hurt you in the public eye. But routine heavy drinking is an activity that might damage your credibility.



This might have been a good point, except for the actual subject matter. How often does simple trespassing make the news? How often are people actually charged with trespassing? It actually doesn't happen that often. If the cops show up and the trespasser is gone, they usually don't even bother with any further action.

Thus, you can't really say that there's a double standard here, because the reverse situation is unlikely to ever happen. If some random architect trespassed on somebody's property, it's doubtful that would ever get reported. News coverage wouldn't even factor into it.

So, no, you still haven't found the part where the SPJ might consider this unethical behavior (I have, but I'm not telling where it is). The problem here isn't that you haven't found the right clause in the Code of Ethics, but that you're ready to fire the guy without even knowing why. You have now been through several different lines of reasoning trying to convict him of an ethics breach, none of which are convincing. And you still think the guy should be canned, even though you can't justify it?

Now who's stretching? An action is not an activity? You can't split that hair any finer ... to take your drink/drinking example, how do you know how one person -- any one person -- might react to witnessing you drink a beer? Are they going to assume this is your very first beer? Or are they more likely to assume that someone who's drinking a beer probably does this regularly? In your example, the witness can only hold them in high regard UNLESS they personally happen to see them drinking heavily on a regular basis ... regardless of how that witness might feel to someone drinking ANY alcohol at all. So let's apply that line of thinking to Dolcefino's situation ... he was caught breaking the law once. According to you, he'd have to be an habitual trespasser before the public or his boss could hold him accountable. I disagree. If I'm a News Director who doesn't tolerate criminal behavior in the pursuit of a news story, then it takes just that one incident for me to let him go. And the reason is the reputation of a journalist, and the station for which he works, is based on his credibility which is built on his integrity. Anything that can be seen as damaging either is grounds for dismissal.

Your other point about how if the architect had been caught trespassing is relevant only in the respect that the employer of either the architect or the journalist has every right to fire someone who they felt acted in a criminal and/or unethical manner, and subsequently damaged his or his employer's reputation. Dolcefino did both. As a ND, I'm asking myself "What's next? What else is he willing to do? Am I willing to continue risking the reputation of my news operation by keeping him employed?" Wayne's employers apparently have, which I can understand, given his apparent resume. I would not. But that's me.

[The Mockingbird]

Here we go again.

Speeding is not a misdemeanor. Speeding is a traffic infraction.

A report released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed about a third of all traffic deaths were related to speeding between 1983 and 2002

Nice going, Hitler.

[Another side]

Huh? Why'd I deserve the "Hitler" tag?

All I did was correct erroneous information being paraded around as fact. I certainly don't dispute that speeders cause traffic deaths.