Drunk reporter flips car, crys "rape." WPSD doesn't report?

Note the story below from The Paducah Sun. Interestingly, the station never reported it because managers claim Ware was not a public figure. A few years ago though, they reported heavily on another reporter's legal woes at another TV station in the state. Double standard?

----
Elizabeth Brooks Ware, 24, of Turnberry Drive was arrested at 3:47 a.m. Sunday after police said she admitted to lying to them about being sexually assaulted and wrecking her car.
Ware is a reporter for the WPSD television station in Paducah.
Paducah police were called to Joe Clifton Drive in front of the Pizza Inn restaurant shortly after 2:30 a.m. because of an overturned 2003 BMW, according to a police report. The car was registered to Ware. The seat positioning and items found in the car indicated a woman was driving, police said.
It appeared the woman had been driving south when she ran off the road and hit a telephone pole, according to a police report.
A few minutes later, a woman called police from a home in the 700 block of McGuire Avenue. She said Ware was beating on her door and had told her that her car had been stolen and that she had been raped, according to the report.
Officer Jarrett Woodruff, Officer Justin Canup and Sgt. Jason Merrick went to the address and interviewed Ware.
"It was apparent Ware had been drinking, and she admitted to it," the report said.
Ware also failed two field sobriety tests. She refused to take a breathalyzer test, according to the report.
At first, Ware said that a dark-haired man had assaulted her and then stolen her car, the report said. After Merrick told her about the consequences of filing a false police report, however, she admitted she had been lying about the assault and had been driving the car.
Canup arrested Ware and took her to the McCracken County Regional Jail. She was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. Ware was released from jail on her own recognizance at 9:21 a.m. Sunday. She is scheduled to appear Feb. 13 in McCracken County District Court.

First Post [img]graemlins/sleep.gif[/img]

But wait! It gets better. The newspaper, which is owned by the same company that owns the TV station, buried the story in a corner on page three and headlined it "Paducah woman arrested for DUI."

To their credit, the paper printed a small, black & white picture of the reporter within the story. But calling her a "Paducah woman" in the headline makes it look like they're saying "Nothing to see here. Move along."

[Fence Sitter]

Can't wait to see her sweeps series, "To alcohol Rehab and back Again: This Reporter's Perspective."

[Focker]

Wait...according to WPSD's website, there ARE NO REPORTERS! Just news anchors, weather anchors and sports anchors. Gee, I wonder who matters most in this business. [img]graemlins/face_banghead.gif[/img]

[Another side]

Originally posted by Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey:
But wait! It gets better. The newspaper, which is owned by the same company that owns the TV station, buried the story in a corner on page three and headlined it "Paducah woman arrested for DUI."

To their credit, the paper printed a small, black & white picture of the reporter within the story. But calling her a "Paducah woman" in the headline makes it look like they're saying "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Well ... there really ISN'T much to see. It's a filler, DUI story, at best. It probably was moved UP to page 3 because she was a reporter with a name the readers might recognize. Might not, either.

This story is more than just a DUI. The reporter, according to police, drove into a telephone pole, overturned her BMW, banged on a stranger's door just after 2:30 a.m., then told the person who answered the door AND the police that someone stole her car and raped her.

Then she failed two sobriety tests and refused to take a breathalyzer. She finally confessed to lying when a policeman warned her about the consequences of filing a false police report. She spent the next six or so hours in jail and was then released on her own recognizance. She has a court date coming up.

Can you imagine what would've happened had she kept her rape story going? Cops would've searched and searched for nothing. What if they gave her a lineup and she would've pointed to an innocent man and said "he did it?"

So again, yeah, it's a little more than a DUI. And the fact that a public figure like a local TV reporter is the suspect at LEAST warrants a headline like "TV reporter arrested for DUI, filing false police report."

[ February 07, 2007, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey ]

The real question is what kind of 24-year-old reporter in Paducah, Kentucky is driving a BMW? Either it's a used model from 1986 or Daddy's got some deep pockets for a little girl who wants to be on tv.

[Another side]

My sense is you have something personal at stake here -- if you don't like her, fine.

But it's still a run-of-the-mill DUI ... with a wreck that injured no one.

And she DIDN'T keep the rape story going nor did she "file a false police report." She pulled out in time, got arrested for the crime she committed (DUI) and it'll cost her a bundle (and in my state, a minimum of 24 hours in jail.)

As far as being a "public figure" ... this may shock you but in most cases, most people couldn't tell you the name of a local TV reporter if they had to. Anchors, yes; reporters, nope.

Boy, there was a time when getting a DUI was actually considered something to be ashamed of, as opposed to "run-of-the-mill."

Originally posted by Another side:
My sense is you have something personal at stake here -- if you don't like her, fine.

Wrong. Don't know her, never met her.

Originally posted by Another side:
But it's still a run-of-the-mill DUI ... with a wreck that injured no one.

And she DIDN'T keep the rape story going nor did she "file a false police report." She pulled out in time, got arrested for the crime she committed (DUI) and it'll cost her a bundle (and in my state, a minimum of 24 hours in jail.)

Suddenly I get the feeling YOU have something personal at stake here. Is she your wife, girlfriend, sister or something?

Originally posted by Another side:

As far as being a "public figure" ... this may shock you but in most cases, most people couldn't tell you the name of a local TV reporter if they had to. Anchors, yes; reporters, nope.

Agreed. Doesn't matter how many people recognize her, though; a TV reporter is still a public figure, especially in a small town with only one TV station.

Maybe she's a great kid; again, I wouldn't know. But she's definitely more than a "Paducah woman" and the newspaper headline should've reflected that. I really doubt any other newspaper headline would've downplayed her public role.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Originally posted by Suri Cruise:
The real question is what kind of 24-year-old reporter in Paducah, Kentucky is driving a BMW? Either it's a used model from 1986 or Daddy's got some deep pockets for a little girl who wants to be on tv.

Article above says it's a 2003.

[Gail sirens]

That's what happens when you have a 24 year old reporter driving a BMW paid for by parents.
No sense of responsibility, didn't earn it and therefore, clueless when wrecking it.
Maybe Mommy and Daddy should have worked on common sense instead of $$$ and cents.
Don't know her, but I'd fire her butt for lying to the police even if she recanted.
Stupid.

[Pregnant Reporter]

Not thinking clearly on the rape claim, was she? Didn't she think ahead to the rape kit at the hospital, that would turn up NO evidence?

Also, I'm not defending her, just looking at the facts here, but isn't it interesting she got charged with the DWI? Nobody saw her driving the car. The fact that she was drunk, or at least failed the two field sobriety tests, and the fact her car was wrecked, can still be considered circumstantial.

I once interviewed a defense atty who told me he ALWAYS advises clients, friends, family, etc to walk away if they wreck their car while drunk and nobody else is involved. He said that way, the most the person can be charged with is leaving the scene of an accident. He said an officer has to SEE the person driving, or respond to an accident where the driver is still there.

Again, I don't care one way or the other, just an interesting point.

You hate to judge a person you don't know. But I have to agree the facts seem to point to someone who is being bankrolled in a small market by her parents and hasn't yet learned some of life's basic lessons.

Tonight's "Breaking News" (that happened yesterday, btw) on WPSD-- a sheriff's deputy is fired after it's discovered he shot himself and lied about it apparently to collect workers comp. Granted, this is a bit more than a reporter crying rape to avoid a DUI, but there are some interesting parallels?

[Another side]

[quote]Originally posted by Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey:

Agreed. Doesn't matter how many people recognize her, though; a TV reporter is still a public figure, especially in a small town with only one TV station.

Maybe she's a great kid; again, I wouldn't know. But she's definitely more than a "Paducah woman" and the newspaper headline should've reflected that. I really doubt any other newspaper headline would've downplayed her public role.

I think you may be infatuated with the title "television reporter." It's really not "all that." And to the local newspaper editors, I'm sure she was just a "Paducah woman."

Again ... the fact that they put it on Page 3 -- a DUI with no accident or injuries -- was probably because of the "public role" you cite.

As far as you not kowing her ... OK, that's cool. It just sounded like you might, but I've been wrong before and if you'll give me a couple of minutes, I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

I'm LMAO at all the people on this board who are working themselves up because of the car this girl drives. Are you kidding me?! WHO CARES. Make your judgement on what apparently happened, fine, but to make all these other judgement because of her wheels is laughable.

Originally posted by Another side:
I think you may be infatuated with the title "television reporter." It's really not "all that." And to the local newspaper editors, I'm sure she was just a "Paducah woman."

I know being a TV reporter is not a big deal. What I'm saying is I believe the newspaper editors downplayed the reporter's identity because the newspaper is owned by the same company that owns the TV station.

Of course that's just my opinion, but let's just assume I'm right. Is it wrong for the newspaper not to identify the reporter in its headline, even considering the circumstances? Not really. The editors have the right to print headlines as they see fit. But I do take issue with it because the paper doesn't seem to have a problem identifying TV talent when they headline positive stories -- i.e., "WPSD anchor calls it quits after 30 years" or "Elementary students learn a lot from TV reporter's lecture."

[Mr T]

Considering that she quit right after this means she is just a "Paducah" woman.

[luckystrike]

A young reporter who covers court cases commits a public crime, then runs from it, THEN has the audacity to try to weasel her way out of it by crying "Rape!" This screams poor judgment, immaturity and perhaps character flaws.

Some insight: the reporter's station is owned by the company that also owns the only paper in the region. The family owners are super uptight about negative publicity and censor what makes it on the air and on the pages; it's all about their image. This family will threaten to destroy you if you cross them.

Can the public trust the station/paper to vet the news when it hits too close to home? That's all that really matters here.

[Another side]

OK. If that's true, why did they run it on Page 3 -- the second-most important newshole on any newspaper? Why didn't they just bury it on Page 7 ... or run it as a "news brief" farther back in the paper in a column designed for those?

If your only argument is that they should have put "reporter" in the headline, then I get back to my original point: it would make no more sense than a headline that says "Welder gets DUI" or "Dental Assistant Nabbed for DUI."

[Roy Hobbs]

To me the most unremarkable thing is a 24 year old reporter driving Daddy's castoff BMW (or a two year old Daddy's graduation present).

I've seen that at almost every station I've worked at.

[Oh Snap]

It's funny to me how people are blowing off the whole DWI aspect of this story when just a couple of months ago a whole boatload of people on this board were up in arms about another young Kentucky reporter who had a DWI and hadn't been fired. She kept her job and jumped up about 100 markets a short time later and it really seemed to piss a lot of people off. I'm not arguing in favor of or against any kind of punishment... I just think the reactions are pretty interesting.
Frankly, I was pretty horrified when I first read this story. Sure, no one was hurt, but that chick needs to be on her knees thanking whatever god she believes in for that... and for the fact that she didn't get an innocent person in trouble with her offensive lie. She's pretty lucky police didn't believe her.

[Gail sirens]

She needs to thank ---------- for still being alive because many car crashes that involve telephone poles result in fatalities.
The new wave of tv journalists:
driving beemers, drinking to excess and falsely crying rape.
She must not have learned anything about ethics in school.
Yes, we all make mistakes, but journalists need to cover the news, not make it.
Not too many I know can afford beemers on entry level salaries, or even larger market salaries.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
If your only argument is that they should have put "reporter" in the headline, then I get back to my original point: it would make no more sense than a headline that says "Welder gets DUI" or "Dental Assistant Nabbed for DUI."

Not all jobs carry the same public interest. Dental assistants and welders are not public figures. If it had been an off-duty cop, however, it would most certainly have mentioned that in the headline. It probably would have been mentioned if it had been a firefighter.

The ONLY reason anyone would care about this story is BECAUSE she's a public figure. You can't seriously believe that most newspapers wouldn't have put "TV Reporter" in the headline.

I agree with you that this probably isn't really a page 3 story. But if they're going to run it there, they should have run it correctly. The way they did it makes it look like they have something to hide.