In Saturday’s Chron was the exciting and good news that Robert Furst has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department under which if he commits no crimes in the next year, and complies with other rules, the government will dismiss the charges pending against him in a case that arose from transactions involving Nigerian barges.
But the report also mentions:
In another Enron case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday refused to dismiss charges against Rex Shelby, a defendant in a case involving Enron’s broadband unit. Shelby hoped the Supreme Court victory of a co-defendant would lead to the dismissal of his case too, but the appellate court sent it back to Houston for retrial.
Mary Flood, as is so often the case when the Chronicle reports on Enron, has her facts wrong. Rex Shelby’s Motion to Dismiss was denied on April 23, 2010. Not “Friday”.
It is a small mistake, but it builds upon an entire body of knowledge that is wrong. Dates, times, amounts – they seem small but they’re important. Get them right.
Thus, when I read about Furst’s deal I was very pleased and happy for him – if disgusted that he had to spend seven years being a defendant in the first place. But I must wonder how much of the Chron’s report is actually based in fact and how much is sloppy reporting.
What would be a good benchmark? That the Chron is reliably accurate 30% of the time when reporting on Enron? 50% ? Certainly not 80%. So let’s split the difference and say that the Chron is reliably accurate approximately 75% of the time. That means there’s a full quarter of stuff out there about Enron that is conjecture, opinion (not news), and general journalistic malpractice.
Enron and the people victimized by the Department of Justice in their relentless pursuit of scalps deserve better. They deserve fair, accurate reporting from the Chron, but since they won’t get it, they can, at least, come here – to the Enron blog.
You’re welcome.
