I was jumping all over the local television stations Friday for saying that no court date had been set for Moark, its regional manager Dan Hudgens, and the other two defendants in the animal cruelty case, when the arraignment had already been scheduled for Aug. 22. That information was not featured in the Saturday Joplin Globe story, though the Globe did not say as the TV stations did that no hearing date had been set.
Give credit to Neosho Daily News reporter John Ford who features that information in an article in today's paper.
7 comments:
Randy, what ever happeded to Huell Warren, a veteran reporter in this area whose skills were rooted in print (AP)?
I can't remember exactly when it was, but it seems to me that Huell died a few years ago. He was close to 80 at the time. If someone has more information, please let me know.
Randy,
John Ford left out the fact that 4 charges were filed. One against Moark Corporate in addition to Hudgens and the two other people. He did get the arraignment date but left off a big pertinent piece of the story. Watson had said on the TV news that because of additional testimony, other than the video, he was made aware of this activity occurring for years. This precipitated inclusion of Moark Corprate in the 4 charges.
Moark has jumped on this issue and quickly started to solve the problem of live bird dumping. Out back of their corporate office over the weekend you would have been able to see several chicken conveyors. One of the conveyors has been retrofitted with a steel tunnel to replace the metal mesh wire and a box at the outlet end with a canvas chute hanging down a few feet. Moark uses the "Animal Care Certified" logo on it's egg cartons. The BBB opposes the use of this logo by the United Egg Producers, Moark is a member. The BBB opposes this logo use because they consider it false advertising. It seems the new ACC guidelines will be "Out of sight, out of mind."
If you would like a pix of the new improved conveyor let me know. My email: mambo@joplin.com
I hate to admit it, but I didn't even notice that the parent company was not named, I was just happy to someone had actually checked to see if there was a court date. Case.net is not a cureall, and we still have counties, including Lawrence and Barry in this corner of the state, that are not online, but I would have loved to have had it when I was in newspapers.
Perhaps some clarification is in order. Each person charged in the Moark case does not face four charges. Each is charged with one count of animal abuse, a Class A misdemeanor. Three people and Moark, a corporate entity, face this charge. This was published both Friday and Sunday in the Daily News. If there are four charges on each, I, and apparently CaseNet as well, were unaware of it.
Here's the lead for Friday's story, as published in the Daily News:
Misdemeanor animal abuse charges have been filed against Moark, its manager, and two subcontractors.
On Friday, Newton County Prosecutor Scott Watson filed Class A misdemeanor charges of animal abuse by intentionally killing an animal against Moark Industries as a corporate defendant; Dan Hudgens, Moark’s Midwestern Division Manager; and subcontractors William Sharp and Robert Beck.
Here's Sunday's:
A hearing in the Moark animal abuse case has been set.
Dan Hudgens, 49, Joplin, midwestern division manager for Moark; and subcontractors William Sharp, 46, of Salina, Okla., and Robert Beck, 47, Southwest City, will appear for a pre-trial conference at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 22 in Judge Greg Stremel’s Division II Associate Circuit Courtroom.
It doesn't look like I left out the fact that four charges were filed, does it? Only it's one charge on each.
If Mr. Adams has a problem with the reporting, maybe he needs to contact the Daily News. My editor, Buzz Ball, can be reached at editor@neoshodailynews.com, and my publisher, Rick Rogers, can be reached at rrogers@neoshodailynews.com. And you can always drop me a line at jford@neoshodailynews.com
Thanks, John.
Randy,
As a teacher and keen observer do you get four charges against each defendent out of my last comment as John Ford has alluded?
"John Ford left out the fact that 4 charges were filed. One against Moark Corporate in addition to Hudgens and the two other people. He did get the arraignment date but left off a big pertinent piece of the story. Watson had said on the TV news that because of additional testimony, other than the video, he was made aware of this activity occurring for years."
Lets assume I had never read the Friday article. I commented on the lack of complete listing of defendants in the article in question on Sunday. His reminder of the full set of defendants on Friday's story is a reminder of Friday news dumps are notorious for getting light play or notice, then to run an abbreviated version on Sunday seemed to smell of carrying water for Moark. Buzz Ball, in the past, has chopped out Moark and other pertinent references when printing a letter sent in by another citizen challenging Moark.
Let me ask you as an award winning reporter, would you attempt to recap at least the most important facts about a story when running a followup? Could we make the assumption that some readers may only see the Sunday artilce and not the previous Friday piece?Would it seem to you that a big part of this story is that a corporate entity has been charged? As Scott Watson stated on the TV news segments on Friday that he had evidence that this had occurred for a number of years. HUGE, I think.
Just as you commented on earlier in your blog about the Carthage paper and their reporters, it seems there is never enough investigation when it is an issue close to you. I do appreciate the Daily and Rick Rodgers for running my long article titled " Citizens investigate Moark claims" 7-26-05
and other comments I have submitted.
Thanks, Mark Adams
Post a Comment