The case took longer to decide than many murder trials. Testimony began Thursday, Sept. 20, and continued through Monday. Final argument was Tuesday morning, and the case went to the jury that afternoon. In Wednesday's paper, Mat-Su correspondent Andrew Wellner said, "A highly conservative estimate is $4,000 to pay the judge, clerk and jury for the four-day trial."
Wellner reported Wednesday:
The trial as it unfolded was a topic of conversation throughout the courthouse on Gulkana Street [in Palmer]. Clerks, lawyers, front-door security guards seemed amused or baffled that it was even happening. A group of about a dozen spectators have been a regular presence in Judge Eric Smith's courtroom.More so than testimony, which tended to be muted and may have reflected a desire by witnesses not to take sides in the custody fight, final arguments hinted at what the conflict was really about. Wellner said:
Closing arguments packed the gallery.
Eric Conard, attorney for the Fiesers, in his final plea to the jury Tuesday morning said the case isn't really about a cat. It's about a vendetta Fosselman carried out against Fieser for leaving the firm. Testimony from witnesses on both sides painted Fieser as a talented, thorough accountant.Final arguments in this case also suggest why small-town courthouses are known for their theatrics everywhere.
Fosselman is a bully, Conard said, who attacked the Fiesers with a $100,000 lawsuit. To hammer home his point, Conard stepped from the lectern to the defense table and pantomimed beating his clients over the head with a sheaf of papers.
"Take that, Fiesers, coming after you for a hundred thousand!" he shouted.
The play-acting was part of a larger performance punctuated by banging the jury rail and stomping his feet. He incorporated a brief musical interlude that featured Conard flourishing his hands above his head, dancing from side to side and singing, in part, "I own Carl."
Fosselman's attorney, Andrew Robinson, was noticeably more subdued, spending most of his time behind the lectern.
If anybody acted outrageously it was the Fiesers, Robinson explained to jurors. They had the audacity to put themselves ahead of Fosselman and the 30 company employees with emotional ties to Carl.
"To say that this case was motivated by bad will on (Fosselman's) part is totally unsubstantiated," Robinson said. "This thing was motivated by the Fiesers and their utter disrespect for the employer that gave Staci her first job in Alaska."
Many witnesses testified to Carl's magnetism and charming habits -- his penchant for bottled water, how he played with visiting clients' pets, his habit of drowning stuffed animals in the office toilet.
Your assignment in class:
1. Read the stories in the ADN. There are about a half dozen linked to each other, but you may do better by entering keywords "Carl" and "cat" in the paper's internal search engine. Evaluate the coverage of the trial in terms of the "Qualities of a Good Story" that Don Murray lists on pages 71-72 of "Writing to Deadline." Also review "What is News?" by Rich Cameron of Cerrito College's online journalism program. Any list of the common elements of news value or newsworthiness (timeliness, proximity, conflict, etc.) will do -- they're pretty standard. But Cameron's discussion is better than most.
2. Analyze the Carl the cat story in terms of its basic newsworthiness and Murray's discussion of what makes a good story. Be specific about which specific elements of this story relate to specific elements of news value -- for example, does Carl's habit of "drowning" stuffed animals in the toilet enhance the appeal of the story? Or is that just something cats do? Look at some of the comments posted by readers on the ADN website, too, and they may give you ideas about the story's human interest (feline interest?) value. How important is this story? What emotions does it stir up with readers?
3. Post a good, detailed paragraph or two of your analysis as a comment to this blogpost, read your fellow students' comments and be ready to discuss in class.
13 comments:
"I'm appalled at the waste of taxpayers' money and time," said a spectator, Karyn Munoz, a Fieser partisan. "
I agree with this person. Murry said that a good story has at least seven elements. Information, Significance, Focus, Context, Faces, Form, and Voice. The key word is "at least". That means that a really good story will have these seven elements and more. Unfortunatly this story only had about 3 of these elements. I believe that they wasted time putting this in the news.
"Information, not language, is the raw material from which effective writing is built."
This story was just 'language'. It was only important to the parties that were involved.
Maybe the cat has a million dollar life insurance policy!!! LOL!
As far as the elements of newsworthiness, I believe that the only element that this story has is proximity!
Tax payers shouldn't waste there money on a case like this. This trail over a cat should of never happened.
Its newsworthiness is a couple of things, its emotion because one of the plaintive is trying to get full legal rights over the cat. Also its proximity because its reoccurring in the news.
There is information in the story, but really the only other piece of the elements is proxmity. This case never should have happened, because it was over a cat...this case happened because the owner was a "bully" according to the story.
I do however, sort of agree with the verdict. It was the owener's firm, and therefore the property in the firm belongs to the owner. So Carl the cat goes to the owener...on the other hand though, the people did seem passionate about the cat...I don't think the samething can be said for the owner of the firm, she was just using the cat as leverage to get back at the Fleisch(spelling), prove her dominance, and also get something out of the building being burnt down.
Although some people may disagree, I think this story is very newsworthy. The mere fact that two people are going to court over a cat is quite interesting. Many people either agree or disagree with the importants of this case, therefor making the the story itself, worthy of reporting.
Of the "Eleven Elements of Newsworthy News," I would say that two elements apply to this story: proximity and the unusual.
Proximity is the easy one. The trial took place in Alaska, and that is where the paper is based.
Let's face it; this story is very unusual. Come on, who sues for a cat? I liked the quote from Fosselman in one of the stories: "That would be like telling me, 'Oh, just go get another kid.'" That was in response to a suggestion that she adopt another cat.
Getting back on the original topic, this story is unusual because it has all of the great elements of a high-profile case: betrayal, long deliberations, et cetera. The only issue is that a cat is in the center of it all.
This is great news!
The real thing that makes this news worthy is how damn ludicrous it is. Come on, how often is somthing this wierd go to court. The articles even say that a few dozen people where showing up to watch this case. There was a constant buzz in the court house. People wanted to know what was going on (and probably why it was going on).
Sure there is not impact or weight prominenece, educational value or usefulness, but its fun. It's unusual and people want to know. That is news.
As for the story itself, Wellner did a damn good job reporting this. This is a tough story to repot on. But he did it and did it well, the only thing it is really missing is significance.
This is one of the most worthless stories I've ever been forced to read.
Sure, it's recent. And unusual. But fun and interesting? Only to those personally involved with the story, or people who spend way too much time with their pets.
Important? No. The case might set precedence for similar court cases in the future, but chances are very few people will encounter the same situation, and I personally don't care.
Finally, this story isn't even unique when it comes to strange court cases. After doing a quick Google search -- for "strange court cases," no less -- there are countless sites outlining bizarre and unusual cases. U.S. vs. Satan, for example.
Basically, this cat story contains very few aspects of newsworthiness, and therefore I don't think it's a particularly good piece of news.
I think everyone who mentioned proximity hit the nail on the head, and so did everyone who said it didn't have much news value otherwise -- other than being unusual and kind of funny.
Why proximity? Palmer is a small town (population 6,920), and people would know the parties to the case. Plus, as Ben mentioned, there was a lot of buzz around the courthouse ... which gives it "currency" too.
But I did a Google search on keywords "palmer alaska carl cat," and got exactly four hits. Three from the ADN, and one from a TV station in Anchorage.
So it's purely a local story.
I did like the court case Robert mentioned, UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO, especially where the court ruled:
"We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the
required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as
to service of process."
Translated from legalese to English, that means they couldn't go to hell to serve a subpoena on Satan.
I think this story was newsworthy because it is so unusual. Because the story is so unusual, people will read it to find out why the cat is worth fighting over and actually going to court about it. I think more people would actually read and keep up with the articles if they were closer to the subject because they may personally know a person who is involved or know about the company who is fighting for the cat. People who are not around the area may ready the story because it is interesting and out of the ordinary, then maybe pick up on another article later on down the trial and read about what happened in the end.
This is an article I may have wanted to follow up on.
Stories like this get people's attention and make them want to read them. Some times its nice to have a break from murder and political stories and read something that is unusual. Sure, it isn't the most important story, but the fact that it actually went to court is news.
This story is extremely unimportant, and is a waste of the taxpayer's money. Most people have more important, pressing matters happening in their lives, and to waste time reading about a story like this is pointless, and a true waste of time.
Of the Eleven Elements of Newsworthiness, I believe that proximity and unusual would apply to this case. Proximity applies because the case is taking place in Alaska where this paper is written. Unusual applies because it is extremely unusual for a trial to exist regarding the custody of cat. All I can say is, Grow UP People!!!
Post a Comment