A member of the city's leading African-American family is accused of wrongdoing. The behemoth news entity that uncovers the alleged malfeasance is accused by the family and its defenders of misrepresentation and invasion of privacy--and, indirectly, of racism. How novel. Whenever the trajectories of the
Mitchells and
The Sun have intersected, bombs have burst in midair. The resulting fires have been fanned by the racial mistrust that often keeps this city from moving forward. Neither side in the regularly occurring explosions involving these two venerable Baltimore institutions is totally in the right--usually.
The Sun's
less-than-sensitive timing and de-emphasis of crime stories in certain neighborhoods have tainted the Daily Monopoly's rep in the city's African-American community, and its coverage of the Mitchells has often been downright weird in its quest for something resembling balance (
Media Circus, Jan. 16). For their part, many of the Mitchells never shy away from a rumble with Calvert Street. Former state senator
Clarence Mitchell III once organized demonstrators to counter the paper's rightful coverage of his misdeeds. (He and his brother, fellow former state legislator
Michael Mitchell, were convicted on charges arising from a 1987 influence-peddling scandal.)
So no one should have been surprised when, in the wake of The Sun's reporting on alleged mishandling of former congressperson Parren Mitchell's finances by Michael Mitchell, the family (in Parren Mitchell's name) filed a $251 million lawsuit against the paper and two of its reporters. Or when, in announcing the suit, state Sen. Clarence Mitchell IV (D-Baltimore City), Parren Mitchell's great-nephew, spewed, "We will not allow these punks to invade our uncle's room, and if we see these punks we'll deal with them the way Druid Hill deals with them." Bullying, lawsuits, loud but empty gestures--unfortunately, this has become the Mitchell way for some in the generations succeeding the duly venerated civil-rights leader Clarence Mitchell Jr. and his younger brother Parren, Maryland's first African-American congressperson. And all delivered with more than a hint that the trouble du jour is about so much black victimization and nothing more.
The lawsuit, filed June 7, charges that Sun reporters Ivan Penn and Walter Roche trespassed and invaded Parren Mitchell's privacy by interviewing him about his finances. According to documents The Sun examined and meticulously reported May 31, Parren Mitchell owes the North Baltimore nursing home where he lives more than $100,000, and Michael Mitchell used his uncle's checking account to buy a car and help prop up his Pigtown bar. Subsequent articles detailed Michael Mitchell's ongoing problems with creditors, the city's liquor board, and the state comptroller's office.
Because the reporters didn't identify themselves as such to the front-desk security man (who, coincidentally, shares the name Michael Waller with The Sun's publisher), some cried misrepresentation--a journalistic no-no that occurs when a reporter gathers information under false pretenses. "Two reporters from The Baltimore Sun sunk to a 'new low,'" the Baltimore Afro-American chastised in its June 1-7 issue. The article, co-written by Afro executive editor (and City Paper columnist) Wiley Hall III, averred that because the reporters gained entry to Parren Mitchell's room without saying who they were, The Sun had behaved unethically. (The piece also repeatedly misspelled Roche's name "Roach.")
Did Penn and Roche really do anything wrong? The most recent high-profile misrepresentation claim involved the Food Lion supermarket chain, which sued ABC News in 1992 after two Prime Time Live investigators lied on job applications to work undercover at the chain's stores. The ABC staffers, who at no time identified themselves as such, used hidden cameras to document sales of unsanitary meat. A jury awarded Food Lion $5.5 million in 1997, but a federal appeals court lowered the award to $2 in 1999. And that was a case involving hidden cameras and journalists who didn't walk in the door asking questions as journalists. Two lousy bucks.
Where does this leave the Sun duo, ethically speaking? In pretty good shape. When they reached Parren Mitchell's room, they say, they told him who they were and what they were looking for. They repeatedly asked Michael Mitchell to explain himself, but he put them off. Even when factoring in Parren Mitchell's age and fragility--both of which were cited in the May 31 story--Penn and Roche can rightly claim that they were investigating the possible fleecing of a Baltimore icon by a family member. (And, unlike in the ABC/Food Lion case, they did not lie to get the story; they simply, and temporarily, did not volunteer the truth--a significant distinction. They showed up at the nursing home and asked to visit a resident, as anyone can.) Even if Parren Mitchell did instigate this suit--and given his circumstances, this seems unlikely--his lawyers will have a hard time arguing that he is entitled to shoot his watchdogs.
Of course, The Sun's righteousness in the matter hasn't stopped the paper from "balancing" its four stories on Michael Mitchell's troubles and the lawsuit with some pro-Mitchell fluff. City Council member Keiffer Mitchell (D-4th District), a young and by all accounts virtuous politician, was the subject of a just-this-side-of-puff piece June 5 and a fawning Gregory Kane column four days later. Such is the racial divide in this city that The Sun feels the need to highlight the work of a good, if green, Mitchell to convince the African-American population of its good intentions.
As for Parren Mitchell's lawsuit, I doubt we'll be hearing much about it. The case should be dismissed soon at the courthouse bearing his brother's name.
Latest MP3s
