http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_3183051 Jeff Brunton (Hawaii) provides info on the UAR. Cheers, George
"Sunga said he took online courses from UAR and received a diploma by mail." Of course he didn't. The newspaper ought to check into this claim sufficiently to refute it. It is irresponsible for them to repeat it, as if they're giving the guy a forum to lie. Stupid. The political candidate indicates he'll seek a legitimate degree. Who cares? His character has already been exposed for all it is.
While I completely agree with the basic sentiment behind what you write, the newspaper was not wrong for repeating what Sunga said... and, whenever possible, pretty much as he said it. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, but for the reporter to have failed to do so as part of getting Sunga's side of things into the story, somehow, would have been malpractice. I mean... I dare say that that sort of thing is straight out of the "How to Write a Hard News Story" lectures in virtually any accredited, undergraduate "Journalism 101" course pretty much anywhere in this country. What you seem to be saying is that if the reporter had been on his/her toes, s/he wouldn't have let Sunga say it without following-up with a refutation of some kind. That's fair. But journalists are trained to try to let defensive statements made by the subject of a story to pretty much stand on their own wherever possible (not without refutation at all, mind you, but just not at that moment), lest editorializing may subsequently be accused. For example, based on what we know the facts of this story to be, the reporter would have been accurate if s/he had placed quotes around the word "earned" in the story's opening paragraph: Facing scrutiny over his educational background, Vallejo City Council candidate Hermie Sunga said Thursday he may start his studies anew for a master's in business administration, after learning the degree he said he earned in 2001 is worthless. but that would have amounted to a form of editorializing.... which has no place in a hard news story. That s/he wrote "the degree he said he earned in 2001" instead of "the degree he earned in 2001" is his/her acknowledgement (or means of conveying) that it's a mere claim, and not a statement of fact in a hard news story sort of way... thereby eliminating the need for effectively editorializing by placing quotes around the word "earned" in order to keep from misleading the reader. In fact, the reporter more-than-adequately fulfilled his/her obligation to keep the reader from being misled by Sunga's misstatement of the facts by soft-quoting the Hawaii consumer protection guy (Jeffery E. Brunton) as having said that UAR was a degree mill; and then hard-quoting him saying, "It was a sort of an online school where people could go and (get a diploma) by successfully passing a test" and "If you paid your money and took your online test you got a master's degree." With that, Sunga's lie with which you take issue (and rightly so, I might add) is effectively refuted. You know, Vallejo is just 12 miles from me here in Napa, and so I can tell you from having read it many times that that little newspaper, just generally, is pretty terrible. But the reporter in this case (Chris G. Denina) actually did a pretty okay job on the article... one that would have earned him/her at least a "B" if it were an introductory journalism class assignment. All the necessary balance elements are certainly there... even if only by hook or by crook. The only thing that would keep me from giving it an "A" would be the truly poor quality of the story's lead. Blechhh!
http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/adv_res/ The summary judgment is now final as a counterclaim filed by Defendant Mitchell has been dismissed. The judgment remains completely unsatisfied and has been deemed uncollectible within the state of Hawaii. Although incorporated in Hawaii, UAR's principal was based in California.
