The Houston Chronicle attacks O'Reilly as a liar...turns out, it's the Chronicle that is telling tall tales.
They call O'Reilly a liar for taking the editorial writers to task for a piece they did on the Florida sex offender law that mandates a 25 yr-life setence for all sex offenders of children under the age of 12.
O'Reilly did mistakenly misquote the Chronicle, and he apologized for making the mistake. No one in their right mind can argue this was purposeful, since no reasonable person would purposely misquote an editorial to 3 million people, most of which have access to the internet and the editorial itself.
O'Reilly attacked the paper for taking the stance that the best protection for child sexual abuse is rehab (they argued for rehab a year ago in another editorial), but the Chronicle claims O'Reilly hasn't got his facts straight. I read the article myself, and they end the piece with this:
Although some compulsive offenders can only be contained rather than cured, counseling reduces recidivism. Community watch programs — as simple as parents patrolling play areas — are a powerful disincentive for predators, researchers say. Finally, educating children about healthy and unhealthy touch, whether by family or acquaintances, remains the best defense against sexual abuse.
That sounds fairly clear-cut to me...they're arguing that the best actions to reduce these types of crime are community watch programs, counseling, and teaching children the difference between healthy and unhealthy touching. You'd be hard pressed to deny that that is, utlimately, the Chronicle's argument.
No one can reasonably argue that the best defense is teaching children the difference between healthy and unhealthy touching. Children cannot defend themselves against an older, larger adult- even if the kid KNOWS the touching is "unhealthy" touch! The best defense HAS to be tough sentencing. The man who killed Lunsford in Florida would have been in prison had he been sentenced longer, and Jessica would be alive today! Couey, the man who raped and murdered the girl was a sex offender who should have been behind bars much longer than he was...had he been in prison where he belonged, he wouldn't have had any way to abuse and murder Lunsford. So, clearly tough jail sentences ARE the best defense. If you argue it isn't, tell Lunsford's parents that! I doubt the Chronicle would have the audacity to make such an attempt.
They quote a doctor who deals with sex offenders in their editorial.
Though horrifying, abduction/murders are actually quite rare, says Dr. Edward Sczechowicz, a psychologist who treats sexual offenders convicted by the Miami-Dade court system. The vast majority of sexual abuse is instead committed by family members or acquaintances.
Dan Patrick, a Houston radio host for AM 700 KSEV appeared on O'Reilly's show tonight, and he mentioned that they looked into this Dr. Sczechowicz, and as it turns out- he actually runs a private psychiactric firm called Alliance for Psychological Services that cashes in on rehab and counseling for sex offenders, and he's actually a defense expert that is often used to make sure criminals receive treatment as opposed to spending time in jail.
This might be a complete conflict of interest, or maybe not...but the Chronicle uses the doctor as their sole source on this piece, and they argue their position based simply on what he said, without any other sources to draw from. In their attack on O'Reilly, the paper says:
The editorial, citing extensive research on this subject, said hooking GPS monitors to sexual predators released from prison might prove less effective than closer supervision by parole officers and other low-tech strategies.
The Chronicle uses one single source, a doctor who runs a business that counsels sex offenders, and they call that proof of their claims based on "extensive research"? Maybe the Chronicle needs a lesson on what citing actually means. They draw from the opinion of one doctor who makes a living getting offenders counseling, and that's that...the rest is based on the opinion of the editorial staff. That's hardly any research, let alone "extensive research." and it sounds as if they're attempting to bolster their very weak case.
I have a feeling that Dan Patrick, who mentioned the extreme bias of the Chronicle was right when he said that they're losing readers in record numbers, and they're clueless as to how to keep the readers. It seems to me, from this incident alone that the Chronicle can't be trusted, at least in regards to the editorial staff. A lack of trust from my end, and I can't be alone. Note to the Chronicle- maybe this is why you're bleeding off readers in such large numbers?
MORE:
Original Houston Chronicle Editoral
The Chronicle's Piece on O'Reilly