For the past few days, I've been swapping emails with Aaron, a teammate of the guy that accidentally crashed into the girl at the races. There seem to be two different stories about what happened — one where he knew he had hit a spectator, and kept on going (which would lead to disciplinary action by the USCF), and one where he didn't realize what had happened, and got back into the race. I've been hunting around to try to find someone who saw the incident directly, but all I've found so far is people who didn't see it, but have a strong opinion about it one way or the other.
I've tried finding out more about the girl and her condition, too, but all I've found is that she was from out of town. Investigative reporting isn't something I'm much good at, apparently.
But is it true?
4 hours ago
2 comments:
I'm finding that investigative reporting really requires collaborators. You are at a disadvantage as a private person trying to find out what happened to another individual. You don't have the "right to know", so to speak. Nevertheless, it would probably be of interest to the other people in the town, too. Why not contact the local newspaper and ask them if they know how the investigation is going and how the girl is? They may not even know something happened. If they don't know, they can probably find out, since they have a legitimate need to publish the news. If you can find out from them, do let us know, too.
Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure the newspapers around here would have been content to quote three of those "people who didn't see it, but have a strong opinion about it one way or the other", intermixed between various restatings of the basic known details, beg a digital photo off anyone that has one, get a statement from the police (even if it's "we're investigating") and call it a story. I figure nobody can really be a successful journalist who isn't happy throwing together whatever gossip is easily available just to make a deadline.
Post a Comment