Disclaimer and correction to news article

Well, the article has been modified, but I don’t believe it reads correctly still, so I’ll just leave this up. I have not communicated with anyone acting as a spokesperson for the Horman/Young family. And while I have sent in some questions hoping to get answers from the family on them, I don’t feel that the brief number of email exchanges I have had with this person have been for the purpose of getting more information in order to write here.

Val,

When reading your original article I did not assume by your statements that you were corresponding directly with Kaine or any other family member but I can see how someone might have ‘read’ that into what you posted.

I just assumed there was a way to get questions to the family through media channels at the sheriffs office. The readers here know you don’t have an e mail to e mail connect…

Now you got to scramble to explain and I bet you get a poop load of new hits this weekend.

Thisbe

Well, the hits don’t really matter, though I do appreciate the article referencing the work that takes place here by all you great people. There is an email address for media to submit questions to Desiree and Kaine. And I have submitted some questions to that address. But I have only gotten one direct response to those questions. I have had a limited exchange with the person who took on weeding through those questions for the family, but they are not an official spokesperson so they have never claimed to speak for the family.

I have had to put this disclaimer back up. The article was changed yesterday evening to read more accurately, but for some reason, after I went to bed apparently, it was changed back to read that I have exchanged emails with a representative of Kaine Horman (which I have not) and for the purpose of getting more details for my blog posts which is also a bit misleading. The brief email exchanges with this person actually were not focused on getting more information for this blog but about something entirely different.

And to be clear, the thing that concerns me here is the misleading picture that Kaine Horman or his representative is spending their time emailing Valhall! While the brief email exchange between myself and this person will remain confidential in its nature, I can say that I learned this from that exchange…

Kaine Horman and Desiree Young are focused on nothing BUT finding their son…so the implication they are chatting it up (or have a representative doing so) with bloggers kind of skews the picture from the reality of the situation.

Val,

I never thought you were in direct communication with the family! I have enormous respect for the work and analysis you do on so many of the current situations in the news.

Thanks for all you do!

Why can’t the media ever get it right? Also why on earth would they make corrections then change it back. UGH!

Val you are the best. I thank God for your reporting. At least it’s accurate, and if you make mistakes you say so.

Donchais,

With you being one of the blog owners that actually knows what the nature of those exchanges were…I appreciate you stating that.

Thanks, shyloh. But I really don’t consider myself “reporting” (and I made that statement to Ms. Wilson). I analyze what is released in order to plant a seed for the great posters here to further the discussion. As I have said many times, I get far more out of this blog from the awesome commenters than I feel I put into it. Anytime I speak with anyone on the backside it is not to “report it” but to keep myself in the correct spot so that if I perform an analysis on information that has been made public I am approaching it from what I can feel is the most accurate direction available at the time. That doesn’t mean we won’t learn more later to render what I thought was an accurate analysis faulty…but at least I feel I try to be as accurate as I can discern at any given time.

Then I rely on all you great folks to keep me straight when I goof up. LOL….I get by with a little help from my friends, I guess.

There are a few more liberties taken in the article that I kind of take issue with, but they are minor. The part about Richard Jewell hanging as a specter that guides my moderation here is not true. Ms. Wilson is the one that brought up Richard Jewell while she was asking me about whether I ever become concerned about discussing someone as potentially guilty of something and then later finding they are not. Somehow that got written as implying I brought him up and that the situation that occurred with him guides me here at The Hinky Meter. That’s not what was said. The primary moderating factor here is common sense and critical thinking. And the thing I am proudest of (and shared this with Ms. Wilson during our phone interview) was that I actually have to do very little moderation here. The commenters here use common sense and critical thinking on their own, which means I rarely have to state “hang on a minute, you’re running away with yourself and there is no evidence of that”.

The things I take greatest pride in at this blog have little to do with me. They are the critical thinking and self-moderation that the regular commenters exhibit when discussing the cases we cover here. And I have noticed that when we get new commenters the behavior of the regulars is infectious and quickly those new commenters realize what is acceptable and what is not as far as how to present speculation and how to back any theories they present. That’s pretty neat to watch.

Read the article and said.. Hmm yeah, well whatever.
Was darn sure IF, you had direct contact with any member of the “family”
you would have so stated. After all, we have already experienced this sort
of situation. But of course those not familiar with Valhall and The Hinky Meter
would probably eat up the article and swallow without giving a thought that
the content might be slightly off flavor.
I’m with you on leaving the disclaimer up, as those coming here may need
to read THE WAY IT IS @thehinkymeter!

Val,

I just remembered this tidbit and just thought it worth sharing:

“Horman said the family didn’t like The Oregonian’s coverage and wanted them to leave. Horman said the daily had failed to be a “team player.”

“This is a team, and if we’re not going to play as a team, there’s no point in being here,” Horman said. “This is about Kyron.”

So, not surprising your comments and your position were not accurately portrayed!

Just sayin…….

Valhall said,
“The brief email exchanges with this person actually were not focused on getting more information for this blog but about something entirely different.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each of the inaccurate statements would have ticked me off…but this one the most. Makes it seem like Val is more interested in promoting her Blog than anything else and is using Kyron as a vehicle to do this. Anyone who has been here on this Blog for any length of time would know this to be false but anyone who hasn’t, wouldn’t.
I wish the Oregonian would print your disclaimer but I highly doubt they will.
I, personally, don’t even understand why the newspaper article was written and published at this time.

Shame on The Oregonian.

Don’t be too hard on her. Ms. Wilson was very nice to speak with. And the reason I agreed to talk with her is because I agree with the purpose of her article. You have to understand that Kyron’s case is the first in Oregon to have heavy involvement in criminal blog sites, discussion boards and social media sites. Ms. Wilson was wanting to explore this “new” information source and how the community as a whole works, and the potential pros and cons. As I stated in my OP…I believe she did a great job of presenting an even-handed review that showed both sides of the argument of both positive and negative effects that could come from online discussions of these cases.

Other than the one statement that I’m concerned could reflect poorly on the Horman/Young families….I have no issue with Ms. Wilson.

@Mimi “I, personally, don’t even understand why the newspaper article was written and published at this time.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure you do, they are competing for readership with the blogs. (Their on line readership undoubtedly skyrocketed in June.)

The difference, generally speaking – they are selling the news – whether you or I pay for it by purchasing a copy or subscribing to ‘Cox’ or ‘Time Warner’ cable, we gladly share it with anyone who wants to read it. Of course The Oregonian and others are also responsible for what they print to be factual.

At this point they at least, owe a quote from Val stating she has denied receiving information from the Hormans or their representative. No wonder the Hormans aren’t happy with the way The Oregonian does business.