Debate Over de Blasio Call on Bishop’s Arrest
By Michael M. Grynbaum
Original Lede:
“When a teacher at his daughter’s
school was arrested at a political protest, Bill de
Blasio, then a New York City councilman,
pleaded with the district attorney not to seek jail time, then wrote to the
judge to request leniency. Mr. de Blasio would frequently call the local police
precinct to inquire about crime reports.”
Revised
Lede:
Shaking his
head from side to side, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio carefully considered
his reaction to the arrest of Bishop Orlando Findlayter, a key political
supporter. With a long history of
intervening into police matters as a city councilman, de Blasio now realized that
his new job brings about a new spotlight.
But with the Bishop behind bars
and looking for a miracle, de Blasio has police commissioner Bill Bratton on
speed dial.
The
revision attempts to capture the Mayor’s state of mind as he considers what his
response should be. He knows that this
is a key political supporter; however, he also realizes that he will be
scrutinized more heavily in the role as NYC Mayor. Despite this fact, he makes the call
anyway. The “Bishop behind bars” line
should catch some attention as the reader imagines a high-ranking member of the
church sitting in jail waiting for someone to assist him. The speed dial line illustrates that the
Mayor has made this type of call before.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy first post--way too long! Rewrite!
ReplyDeleteI'm not confident de Blasio's behavior is out of the ordinary for a councilman in reference to frequent calls about crime rates-first lede. Crime is a community issue. Commissioner Bratton answers to the board for a reason! Some councilmen might think it's an important part of their job to speak with a commissioner regularly--and more than a few commissioners would prefer not to receive those calls regarding police practice and procedure. Unless the reporter could document ongoing interference with multiple cases and calls, I'm not sure 'frequent calls' is even relevant and may lead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.
The details of this story are not clear. The first lede does not indicate anywhere deBlasio called the Commissioner about Findlayter. Speed dial to the Commissioner over this case? Possibly. No facts are in evidence. The Commissioner was not quoted for a reason.
It was written, "With a long history of intervening into police matters as a city councilman..." I think that's why the community trusted deBlasio as I vaguely recall. Did Mr. deBlasio wield inappropriate power in multiple situations--a second name, third name would strengthen this lede and pique my curiosity? The facts available based on the ledes don't support a pattern of abuse or even prove inappropriate power until the reader knows why the protester was arrested by the police [and just happened to be a financial supporter of deBlasio's?--just protesting seems innocuous behavior; also sanctioned by the Constitution]. There is a insinuation of abuse of power by deBlasio, no serious facts brought into play. Are the police completely innocent? The Commissioner? Is deBlasio innocent of abuse of power? His actions may edge that issue based on the lede. What goes on behind closed doors and speed dial is what I want to hear.