In Thursday’s Leader-Call, we ran a front-page story in regard to the raid on Lyon Ranch Road with the headline “Starvation?” The story did nothing but give facts in regard to the amount of money that Mary Ellen Senne spent on dog food each month, complete with documentation in the form of receipts and photos. No one should be able to argue that the story was very timely and extremely pertinent in a case where the accused are facing charges of animal abuse that include starvation.
Apparently, Sheriff Alex Hodge doesn’t believe that an independent media should be allowed to do its job and that only his side of a story should be told. Maybe he wants to be the media. This could explain his need to live stream his podcast each week. Who knows? What we do know is that he is overstepping his bounds in this case.
In response to our story, Hodge took to Facebook and posted the following “While our animal cruelty investigation continues, the Laurel Leader-Call front page today says STARVATION?”. He goes on to take a shot at our “Thumbs Down” to people on social media who jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts. That particular “Thumbs Down” could apply to any number of circumstances, including the unwarranted attacks on Donald Trump as well as this dog-abuse story, but Hodge posted “Reading the front page of the LLC totally dedicated to telling us how innocent the suspects are in our animal cruelty case makes this thumbs down somewhat SUSPICIOUS.”
I reiterate, our front page contained nothing but facts, and if Hodge thinks we got something wrong, instead of baseless attacks on Facebook, he should have contacted us and pointed out what he thinks was reported in error. I know he has my number.
Finally, Hodge added, “And the JCSD active investigation continues into the who knew what when!” Normally, we would give the Sheriff the benefit of the doubt on a statement of such, but considering that Hodge called me into his office to inform me that Leader-Call editor Sean Murphy was now “under investigation” and since everything in his Facebook thread was directed at the Leader-Call, it is a pretty safe assumption that Hodge was trying to send a message (possibly a threat) to our editor. I hope I’m wrong about this, as it is a serious abuse of his position.
When I met with the sheriff, I thanked him for letting me know about Sean’s involvement. I told him that I would pull Sean off the story and that I would put Mark Thornton on it. The Sheriff agreed with me that Mark is a good, unbiased and trustworthy reporter who would be fair to everyone.
Mark Thornton and I are the first to admit that having our editor having a close, personal relationship to both parties, but especially the accused, makes our job more difficult. But having kept my promise of removing Sean from the equation and having Mark provide reports based on first-hand interviews and concrete evidence backed up with documented proof, I’m not sure exactly why the sheriff has his panties in a wad.
I followed through on the promises I made to the sheriff, but that doesn’t seem to be good enough for him. Attacking this newspaper because we showed that the accused in this case spent a fortune each month on dog and cat food is not only small-minded but shows a lack of respect for the role of the media.
It makes one wonder why the sheriff is so defensive about this case and whether he actually believes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
— Jim Cegielski, publisher