Readers tell vindictive newspapers: “Kane innocent until found guilty”
Last hurrah for dying Pennsylvania newspapers in Kathleen Kane case?
The question being asked in Harrisburg this week is not how long state attorney general Kathleen Kane may survive in her job.
Mugshot of PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane
The insightful question is how long some of the state’s oldest newspapers can survive if they continue to try to hound Kane or others from elective office while they violate the trust of their sources and readers, lose influence, and demonstrate their inability to sway opinion.
In their heyday, before the Internet, the state’s creaky, century-old newspapers — like the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Harrisburg Patriot-News — could always be counted on to gleefully serve up the heads of political foes like state Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer, or Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen, in a largely unopposed fashion.
In the past, the public was forced to accept the newspapers’ often one-sided, ill-conceived, or simplistic version of events.
But those days are gone.
In the Kane controversy, the Philadelphia Daily News and Inquirer strangely accuse the state’s first female attorney general of leaking information to them for a news article.
AG Kane says she is innocent and plans to put up a vigorous defense.
Still, the newspapers want her gone, and have breathlessly reported that newcomer Gov. Tom Wolf and several legislative leaders also want Kane to resign without a trial.
But around the web it’s apparent that Kane still enjoys grassroots support, particularly among women.
And many readers simply don’t understand what the case against her is about.
WPMT Fox 43 of York, for example, this weekend reported on its facebook page that Gov. Tom Wolf called on Kane to resign, prompting a backlash against the hometown governor.
“Isn’t a person innocent until proven guilty?” commented Barbara S Ness Eckert of Dallastown, York County.
“She is innocent until proven guilty by her peers,” writes Rich Rineholt of Stewartstown.
Some readers couldn’t understand why Gov. Wolf and legislative leaders are in such a hurry to see Kane gone when, after all, Wolf and the legislature are in no particular hurry to, well, pass a state budget.
“I thought you were innocent until proven guilty?” asks Brenda Hollenbach of Mechanicsburg. Then, she asks Gov. Wolf, “Nobody in political office works anyhow. Like passing a budget?”
Reader to pennlive: ‘Bad precedent’
Similar reader comments were posted in the Harrisburg Patriot-News’ pennlive webpage. Pennlive, like the Philadelphia papers, has taken a loud if as-yet ineffective role in attempting to drive Kane from office.
“I am not defending Kathleen Kane not am I advocating for her to continue in the role of AG, however I agree with her about not resigning, this would set a bad precedent for getting rid of anyone just by accusations,” Pennlive reader WestEnola comments.
Readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News philly.com website meanwhile wonder what all the fuss is about, particularly since the Inquirer once endorsed Kane for office.
“She’s been adamant about her innocence,” comments reader TomPaineCommonSense. “It would be a shame for her to resign at this point and deprive the public of the other side of the story.”
Kane’s arraignment this weekend made national news, so questions about the strange and vitriolic role of some in the media to drive her from office are no longer limited to the state press.
Earl Shelton, a reader of a Huffington post story this weekend, summarizes, “Smells like political payback by the Republicans — a political ‘feud’ that spilled over into court (and probably shouldn’t have).”
Huffpost reader Sharon Grata suggests, “This reeks of Corbett. I didn’t vote for her but she was trying to expose Corbett for not prosecuting Sandusky.”
“Fina and Corbett will use every smokescreen they can muster to protect themselves after their part in the Sandusky mess,” comments Huffpost reader Keith Ward.
Sound and fury, signifying the Pennsylvania state press
While a few state media outlets have thrown all semblances of objectivity and caution to the wind in their insistence that Kane must go, that sentiment is not universal.
The legal case against Kane, writes the Sharon Herald, “is no slam dunk.”
The Herald quotes Williamsport criminal attorney Cliff Rieders as saying that prosecutors, “might have a difficult time demonstrating that (Kane) intended to break the law.”
And, after all, the Herald reminds us, Kane remains “innocent until proven guilty.”
“More serious charges, like corruption or bribery, might compel a stronger argument that she resign. Leaking a story to a newspaper then lying about it doesn’t rise to that level,” the Herald quotes Rieders.
“I know all the people involved,” Rieders said. “It smells of politics to me. Why should we disrupt the whole criminal justice system in Pennsylvania for that?”
Still, the newspapers hate to be defied.
The Inquirer, the Patriot-News, and even the old Associated Press wire service, are petulantly beating their sunken chests and pushing a far-fetched scenario advocated by retired Chief Justice Ron Castille, a political foe of Kane’s.
An attorney disciplinary complaint should be filed against Kane, Castille says, so that the state Supreme Court could, on an emergency basis, suspend her from practicing law, thus removing her from office by technicality.
The problem, defense lawyers say, is that Kane must be allowed to defend herself in such a disciplinary proceeding. But defending herself an unusual disciplinary proceeding would likely compromise and prejudice her ability to defend herself in criminal court, or perhaps even place her in double jeopardy.
Cooler heads in the legal profession seem unlikely to press for discipline against Kane until and unless she is criminally held liable for leaking to the Daily News.
“Innocent until proven guilty,” after all, is still a legal standard, if not a journalistic one in Pennsylvania these days.
Not that some of Kane’s enemies in the court system wouldn’t want to drag her through a premature disciplinary hearing.
But this mud fight between the Philadelphia newspapers and AG Kane is already drawing too much critical attention, and too much controversy, and too many people are beginning to look on.
As one bemused Harrisburg legal observer told me, “Pennsylvania and Harrisburg are trying hard to become known as the Massachusetts Colony and Salem of the early 21st century.”
The days are gone, apparently, when the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News can simply burn Kathleen Kane at the stake for giving it information.
Fina has to know sooner or later we are all going to know what was in his porno stash.
The news media doesn’t check facts anymore so to be first with a story. Big headlines sells papers.
She should have her day in court. If convicted, be penalized accordingly. I do think she should suspend her duties and have an acting AG handle matters until this is resolved.
I didn’t think she was a good choice for AG. And if convicted gives another black eye to female politicians.
The whole premise [is] the chief law enforcement position in a State must be beyond reproach. Ugh.
EDITOR: If bringing charges forces her out of office, her adversaries win.
Only Corbett cronies and grafters are worried about Kane. Above reproach means she doesn’t prosecute any of them based on politics like that GOP party flack Corbett did against Democrats.
let’s see – there’s a building at Penn state with Katz’s name on it (law school). He owns shares of the Inky and Philly rags. He buys the majority shares, his significant other is an editor there. Says he’s going to right a lot of wrongs (perhaps – oh I dunno – real journalism). But his plane mysteriously crashes due to a suspect preflight check item…. Hmmmm nope nothing odd there…
The author of this article obviously does not know LNP…..otherwise he would have included it in his dissertation about dying newspapers who only want their way.
She must be close to unveiling more people involved in the Sandusky scandle.
This is poltical payback for exposing the good old boys club of misogyny for dragging their heels with the Sandusky matter and for the xrated emails they sent.
Some news outlets in PA are reporting she is under federal indictment. Huh? Makes you wonder just what is going on here. I am pretty sure it is a Montgomery County prosecutor with a local grand jury indicting her.