Bill Macfadyen: How We Came to Publish ‘The Names’

There was plenty of speculation, but much more to the story than what you read

By William M. Macfadyen, Noozhawk Publisher | @noozhawk | Published on 02.17.2009

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Post | View Comments (32)
    • Share
 

The Tea Fire was still raging out of control when investigators began gathering evidence of the source and circumstances of its origin. Speculation sparked almost as quickly as the blaze. No sooner had authorities quelled the flames, then they had to confront accusations by some that powerful interests were hindering justice.

Fortunately, the public safety element was the urgent priority and the official investigation was a methodical search for facts. As it turns out, at least from Noozhawk’s perspective, a rash rush to judgment could have exacerbated the disaster even more so than the emotional toll of 230 homes lost and hundreds of families displaced.

In early December, from various sources, Noozhawk acquired a handful of names that purportedly were those of some of the participants in the ill-fated bonfire set — and believed to be extinguished — the night before the Tea Fire erupted Nov. 13. We did our best to follow up, but soon began to suspect that some of our sources may have been playing a dangerous guessing game. My ardor cooled further after several weeks passed and the other two professional news outfits in Santa Barbara, the Daily Sound and the Independent, which presumably had access to at least some of the same information, didn’t produce stories of their own.

Out in cyberspace, including the part Noozhawk occupies, there was no shortage of “informed” theories implicating — in rough order of appearance — Westmont College, Santa Barbara’s “Anglo elite,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown, investigators, prosecutors, District Attorney Christie Stanley and Santa Barbara Fire Chief Ron Prince. It wouldn’t have surprised me to see the conspiracy linked to the Pentaverate, the secret society allegedly run by the Queen of England, the Rothschilds, the Gettys, the Vatican and the late Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes. Noozhawk was even accused of being part of the problem because we were insufficiently attentive to the community’s need to name names.

After all that, however, when our Lara Cooper showed up at the Courthouse at 9 a.m. Tuesday — the only reporter to do so, I might add — and finally, at long last, got the list of the 10 individuals whose names may well live in infamy here, what I was most interested to discover was that not one of the names pushed on us turned out to be accurate. A couple we knew to be fanciful rumors at the time and one name bore a passing resemblance to one of those facing misdemeanor charges, but for the most part our instincts were correct.

Noozhawk is not afraid to follow the news wherever it leads, but we don’t make a point of tipping our talons at what we’re up to. Further, it was the ethical, prudent and professional thing to do to stand aside and let the official investigation play out. We’re journalists, not law enforcement or the justice system; our operating principals are to report on the news, not make it.

Story comments are story comments, and should be taken for what they are: often emotional snap reactions to what was just read. Some add value and some don’t, and each of you can make your own judgment on their worth. But for those of us who pay a hefty premium for publisher’s liability insurance, there’s a much higher standard to which we must hew. Even on the Internet, which can accommodate continuous updates, we have a duty to get the story right. As I’ve told our reporters repeatedly, it’s not enough to be first, we have to be responsible.

I don’t mean to be insensitive to those who survived the Tea Fire at an unimaginable cost to their lives and well-being. Having lost my own home in a natural disaster, I can relate all too well to the arduous journey to recovery. It’s exhausting, stressful and bewildering, and no matter how well you’re enveloped in faith, love and support, when night comes you’re all alone with the whys and what ifs.

But I do mean to be sensitive to the 10 accused whose tragic mistake — incredibly careless and colossally stupid, but still a mistake — will now follow them, and likely their checkbooks, for the rest of their lives. Who among us does not have something in our past that could have had similarly unforeseen consequences? Not me (sorry, Mom). And I think I’ll just drop the rest of the stones I was about to cast. I’m also sensitive to those who were not involved but could have been had we acquiesced to vocal vigilantes calling for what a multiagency investigation has now concluded would have been false IDs.

Further, I do not see a double standard in the way the names of these 10 individuals came to light relative to that of a teenager accused of taking the life of another teenager. It’s an unfair comparison because, in both cases, the names were released when charges were filed. Just because one investigation takes longer for prosecutors to come to a conclusion does not indicate injustice has been served. But, again, Noozhawk will always strive to err on the side of responsibility rather than haste.

This story is not over and Noozhawk is not through. But I do hope our staff’s professionalism gives you continued confidence in our journalism ethics and practices. We take seriously our role as this community’s online news source. But just because we can publish something, doesn’t always mean we should, or that we will.

— Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk. Become a fan of Noozhawk on Facebook.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» Doug Phillips on 02.18.09 @ 01:12 AM

Thank you for taking the time to explain your decision-making. One of the things I detest about the Web is all of the anonymity that allows people to do and say things they probably shouldn’t. In that regard I’ve always been impressed with Noozhawk’s transparency. It’s refreshing and I thank you.
- Doug in D.C.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» meliori anon on 02.18.09 @ 01:23 AM

Thanks for the behind-the-scenes reflections, and for such strong, ethical work, which is a model for local news organizations. Such care in reporting and editing does a lot to help our community work through our grief and loss with as little needless hurt as possible.

We especially appreciate receiving the news without the snarky vitriol characteristic of another local news organization.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tommy B on 02.18.09 @ 05:38 AM

Continue to appreciate Noozhawk’s great work & high standards - thanks Bill!  TB

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Anonymous. on 02.18.09 @ 06:17 AM

Bravo.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Rattlesnake Canyon on 02.18.09 @ 06:22 AM

Thank you for your thorough and professional journalism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Owen on 02.18.09 @ 06:46 AM

Nicely done, Hawk.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Eva on 02.18.09 @ 07:47 AM

Very well said.  This is why we love and trust Noozhawk!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Montecito resident on 02.18.09 @ 08:15 AM

I still think the 10 accused should make a public apology!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Lou Cannon on 02.18.09 @ 08:33 AM

Bill,

I think you did the right thing. There is always a
balancing test on the publication of names; no single
rule covers all circumstances. And you are quite right
in saying that the standard is different for someone
accused of murder than for someone accused of accidentally starting a fire, no matter how devastating.

I don’t know what I would have done in your shoes, but
you acted professionally.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sbmother on 02.18.09 @ 08:44 AM

Thanks for this article.  I respect your professionalism. Seeing the comments made by others about this whole story has sickened me at times. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that is all it is, their opinions. Noozhawk did the right thing and that is why I continue to come back and read it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Jon on 02.18.09 @ 10:34 AM

Double bravo!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» San Roque Resident on 02.18.09 @ 10:36 AM

Well said and well reasoned. Thank you, and thank Noozhawk for being there.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Dave Bemis on 02.18.09 @ 10:38 AM

Bill, as always, extremely well written and right on point. Nice job.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Noozhawk has a false sense of ethics on 02.18.09 @ 11:04 AM

The names of the 10 were published in todays News Press.

The 10 were charged with a crime of trespassing and starting an illegal fire. That is a crime.  Their names are news.  It is the job and duty of a newspaper to publish the news.  The vast majority of the readers desire to know the names.

It is not the job of a newspaper to censor the news but to report it.
what the Noozhawk is doing is nothing more than censoring plain and simple.  And patronizing us by selectively reporting the news, and withholding news as they see fit.

This decision was just plain wrong, and is based on fault thinking.    Provide us with the news or we will go someplace else for it.

[Editor’s note: Actually, the names of the 10 were published yesterday on Noozhawk. Save yourself some time and come here first.]

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Ted O. on 02.18.09 @ 11:08 AM

Nice work Bill.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Don on 02.18.09 @ 11:27 AM

Your thoughts are well taken.  But what bothers me was the rush to press felony charges on the two ranch hands who inadvertantly started the Zaca Fire, but for the Tea Fire, investigation and reporting was slow and deliberate.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» psb on 02.18.09 @ 01:38 PM

Nothing like patting yourself on the back!  Ya ya, you’re great, now sit down.  You are in it for the money, and what?  Honor?  Journalism? 

Maybe you were just smart enough to protect your ass(ets) to not publish such libelious things like unconfirmed names or your insurance rates would go up after you got yourself sued.

That you are unafraid to “go anywhere” with a story is really grandstanding.  What journalist would defenestrate his best source unless it was the story of the decade?  There is plenty of ass-kissing going on in the media, and you, kind sir, are not immune to it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» False sense of ethics? on 02.18.09 @ 03:35 PM

As if more proof were needed that the only people still relying on the Newspress for news are idiots.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Duff is better than Fudd on 02.18.09 @ 05:05 PM

I scratched my crotch today, but Noozhawk did not publish anything about that.  Must be censorship.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Toot, toot on 02.18.09 @ 09:04 PM

You know that boat “Lil Toot” that takes tourists around the harbor. Well, I think Bill just earned the name “Big Toot.”

You sure do like to toot, Bill. Toot! Toot.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Too funny on 02.19.09 @ 06:32 AM

You read all the way to the end of the story and Lil Toot was the best insult you could come up with? Ya’ll are real quick over there at De La Guerra Plaza, aren’t you? Was that a group effort?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» leslie Westbrook on 02.19.09 @ 08:02 AM

excellent…i bet you make your mom proud! leslie

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sbnative on 02.19.09 @ 08:57 AM

Noozhawk…thank you once again for clean, clear, complete reporting. Far from ‘tooting’, just clarification on the platform you choose to provide news. (great to see you SB newspress employees join us to read REAL NEWS —learn anything yet?)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sb mother on 02.19.09 @ 12:20 PM

For all of you complaining about Noozhawk not reporting the news and blah blah blah… why do you still read it if it is such a worthless piece of crap?  Just stop complaining and keep reading the tabloids that report the “news” first and get the facts later.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Rosenwald on 02.20.09 @ 12:09 AM

Mr. Macfadyen, thank you for taking the time to explain the background of this story. The web culture has certainly accelerated calls for immediate news but we consumers rarely think about what goes into meeting that demand. That you do it with such a small staff of “hawks” makes it that much more impressive.

I just enrolled in your Hawks Club and am encouraging my friends to do the same. I’m proud to support you with a small donation.

Thank you and best wishes.

[Editor’s note: Thank you very much for your kind words and for your donation. They are both greatly appreciated.]

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Bob on 02.20.09 @ 05:22 AM

How this fire started is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The largest piece is the issue of flammable homes surrounded with flammable vegetation in a micro climate that promotes a slope and wind driven fire with regularity. Looking back as to who started the fire will not prevent another such fire. Looking forward can prevent a repeat. All new homes must be fire resistant. All vegetation must be fire resistant. No home should be closer than 200 feet to the natural brush line. The fire departments, planners, and landscapers should sit down and do some serious discussion on how to prevent a new Tea Fire.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» JAX on 02.20.09 @ 06:39 AM

The problem that immediately developed over the Tea fire news coverage was the early reporting that a group of ten young adults ” HAD STARTED THE FIRE “.

As I posted in an earleir comment on this subject this was generally not the proper description. The media tends to report the sensational and when the truth is not sensational enough, some try to add the sensation to make it so.

That is what occurred here when the media began using this somewhat inflamatory description of events at the outset and which aroused such a public clamour for the identities of those who were present at the Tea House gathering prior to the start of the wildfire fire and who were reported as “HAVING STARTED THE FIRE”.

The obvious legal question was, given the facts available, how could anyone conclude that one or all of a group of 10 had actually “started” this devestating wildfire”.

Who built and lit the fire? Are they the persons responsible for “starting the resultant wildfire” on the basis that one who starts a campfire is ultimately responsible for tending and extinguishing it and if they don’t are they responsible for anything that happens thereafter?

Who else fed more wood onto the fire? By doing so are they also vicariously liable for the resultant wildfire even though they may have left before the end of the party?

Who was the last one to leave? We all should know the protocal which was a lesson from “Smokey the Bear” in numerous television advertisements over the years! That lesson is, the last person to leave must make sure the campfire is out, using dirt, water and spreading of embers to insure there are no remaining coals that could be brought back to life by strong winds.

This is undoubtably the dilemma facing investigators once they identified the persons who were present at the gathering because mere attendance at a campfire, albeit an illegal and dangerous one, does not constitute “starting” the tragic wildfire which ultimately became the Tea Fire apparently resulting from a careless failure to insure the fire was properly extinguished.

That is probably why only misdemeanor trespassing charges were ultimately sought.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sb mother on 02.20.09 @ 07:06 AM

While living in the Northern California Sierras, I lived with fire danger every year.  Hearing a helicopter always prompted people to go outside and see if it had a water basket on it so as to know if there was a fire in the area.  Most people had scanners to listen to fire and police calls because it was the fastest way to know if something was happening.

As far as fire protection is concerned, it was a law in our area, and in many other Sierra communities to have a defensible space around your house.  There were community volunteer groups that went around their neighborhoods in the spring and checked the property lots to make sure this defensible space was cleared around homes.  This included clearing debris from the roofs and cutting back trees limbs away from the roofs.  It was required and if it was found that you did not have this space by a certain day in the springtime, then you were heavily fined and still had to clean your property up and then your property was reinspected by the fire department to make sure you did it.  I realize that would be extremely hard to do in this area but with community volunteers at least some areas could possibly do something like this.  Yes, it was a lot of work every year to clean up your property but we all knew it was worth it if a fire did come through our area.  The fire department told the community many times that if it came down to defending a home with defensible space and one without, they would move to the home with the defensible space since they knew they had a better chance of saving it.  I realize that if the fire is bad enough that homes will be lost, as it happened in our area in the Sierra on a few occasions, but many were saved by the diligence of the community to work with the fire department to have the defensible space.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Art on 02.20.09 @ 09:23 PM

Well said. It’s reassuring to know there some professional standards and judgment that go into making decisions on the Internet. It sets you apart. Thanks.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Former Barbarian on 02.21.09 @ 06:13 AM

Bill: It’s difficult to read some of the postings in response to your article explaining Moozhawk’s refusal to print the names of Tea Fire suspects until it was certain they were correct. Good grief! Are some folks so bereft of compassion and empathy that they cannot imagine how destructive it would be if it were their names or those of their childrens’ wrongly published in relation to something so emotionally incendiary? (no pun intended) A false accusation is something that follows you for the rest of your life, and sometimes results in something worse…

And it’s so simple really - in any situation we just have to recite the Golden Rule to determine the right thing to do.

That Noozhawk practices ethical journalism should be seen as a precious gift to the community - especially when its daily printed paper has proven that when the foundational cornerstone of ethics is removed, it is trust and reliability that fly out the window. As someone once said, “Trust is the easiest thing in the world to lose, and the hardest thing in the world to get back.”  (Wendy? Travis? Anyone home?)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» JAX on 02.21.09 @ 09:08 AM

Art;
Wendy’s penchant of allowing Travis to use the pages of the Newspress to personally attack people is infamous. This leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth even if you agree with a point Travis maybe trying to make.

That lack of newspaper ethics, coupled with the shrinking coverage of real news and the noticeable increase in simply republishing wire stories, is resulting in the slow death of a once nobel daily newspaper.

The biggest tragedy in these death throes is that the owner and publisher evidently doesn’t see it or that she does see it and agrees with it or perhaps could care less!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Marie Taylor-Cagara on 02.21.09 @ 12:11 PM

Perfect, Bill.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

More Local News »

Authorities Locate SBCC Student Reported Missing

His mother had asked for the public's help finding her 20-year-old 'special needs' son

Red Flag Warning Canceled; Wind Advisory Still in Effect

Sunny skies are expected to give way to some clouds over the weekend

Santa Barbara Breaks Record With High of 86 Degrees

Previous mark for May 23 was 82, set in 1949, according to the National Weather Service

Santa Maria Man Facing Child Molestation Charges

Victim reports being sexually abused over a period of time by the suspect

Police Seek Public’s Help Identifying Suspect in Retail Thefts

Surveillance photo shows person wanted in connection with thefts at two Santa Barbara stores

Weather: Partly Cloudy 53.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive