It must be the desert sun, or maybe there's something in the water, that makes journalists in Las Vegas so stupid...
A case in point, Andrew Kiraly - Managing Editor - of Las Vegas CityLife.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Kiraly contacted me to request an interview about a disturbing incident I reported on my blog in January, which "went down" at the Golden Nugget Hotel.
In a nutshell, I was walking through the rows of one-armed bandits one afternoon in the Casino, when a female security guard ambushed me, and demanded my I.D. in a rude insulting manner. I handed it over to her, but reeled over the fact that there appeared to be a case of mistaken identity or something. I mean, why was she harassing me?
When I asked her to explain her actions, she sought a quick defense. In response, she stated matter-of-fact that she spied me wandering about the casino floor, not betting, and looking suspicious.
Total nonsense!
In fact, in my hand I held a voucher that was dated and time-stamped, that verified I had been plugging coins into the slots for the previous half hour, contrary to her wild allegations!
Obviously, I caught the woman in a lie, trying to validate her unwarranted intrusion.
For good reason, I asked for her supervisor.
A pudgy, ineffectual man appeared, pooh-poohing my claims of inappropriate conduct. So, I asked to see his boss. At this point, he was quite adamant that he was the "top brass" at the Hotel Casino. Of course, I surmised his claims were false, and demanded that the "Manager" speak with me in person on the Casino floor, pronto!
At this juncture, Mr. Realmuto - the real Casino Manager - appeared.
After a brief discussion, he concluded that my complaints were well-founded. Realmuto assured me the Security Guard would apologize (or be suspended) and went on his way to take care of other Casino Business.
However, the Security Guard refused to come back to the floor and offer regrets.
So, I reported the distressing incident on my blog, warning tourists about questionable security practices at the Golden Nugget which might warrant a boycott.
Post: January 8, 2008
In spite of the fact Mr. Kiraly read the initial Golden Nugget post (which was self-explanatory) he asked me to respond to additional questions for the article he was penning. I complied with his request, by e-mail.
For a couple of weeks, I never heard back; so, I assumed he published the article.
Then, one day out-of-the-blue, he contacted me once again. On this occasion, he assured me he was basically ready to put the news report "to bed", but needed a couple of additional details clarified for the article.
At this juncture, he asked me to provide my last name.
Duh!
When I pointed out my name was at the top of my blog, he responded, "Whoops!"
Why kind of investigative journalist was this?
Then, to make matters worse, he proceeded to ask a couple of redundant questions. Even still, I remained patient, and provided thoughtful responses without delay to assist with his investigation of the facts.
Imagine my surprise when I was searching the world-wide-web last week and came across the article he'd written, rife with false statements.
For example, Mr. Kiraly reported that I refused to show my I.D. to the security guard.
A total falsehood!
Then, he proceeded to build a story on this false premise.
For example, he wrote:
"Now, strange things happen in casinos, but what followed was one for the books. Ayrs - steadfast in his refusal to show his I.D. and quickly becoming convinced he was the victim of some form of discrimination - drew a veritable chain of Golden Nugget management into a philosophical debate over whether he had to show his I.D."
The account was totally off!
There wasn't any philosophical debate over whether I should show my I.D. How could there be? I showed it upon request.
Mr. Kiraly got all his facts screwed up.
At issue was not whether I showed my I.D. - but rather - the false allegations the security guard made on the Casino floor, which not only embarrassed and humiliated me, but damaged my name and reputation to the other Hotel guests standing nearby.
Indeed, Mr. Kiraly's twisted account of the events, actually inferred that because of an "alleged refusal" to show my I.D., I was at fault.
Hogwash; nothing could be further from the truth.
But, Mr. Kiraly's lack of journalistic skills did not end there.
When I contacted him to inform him of the "factual errors", he had the audacity to assert that I neglected to disclose I showed my I.D.
False!
The reason I chose to conduct the interview by e-mail, was to ensure that all my statements were in writing, and to prevent any misquotes. In my response communication, I pointed out that I saved copies of all the previous e-mails, and that I was able to verify he had been properly informed.
I also noted my dismay over the fact he appeared to try to shift blame on me.
To date, there has not been any reply from Mr. Kiraly.
After firing off a communication to the Editor, I received word back that a retraction would be printed.
But, how do you unring a bell?
I noticed at their web site this past week that the editor has noted in the article, at their online web site, that a mistake was made in respect to my "alleged" refusal to show I.D.
But, even in this instance, the paper has failed miserably in respect to journalistic ethics.
Normally, a newspaper prints a retraction in a "separate" notice, in a prominent place in the publication. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure attention is drawn to the fact that the journalist made a mistake in reporting the facts, and to make a good faith effort to ensure readers are aware of it.
At Las Vegas CityLife...they recognized they were legally and morally obligated to correct the errors; but, bottom line, it's evident by their sloppy patch-up job that they did not want to draw attention to the fact their managing editor made such grievous errors in respect to a representation of the facts.
I have to wonder at this point how a top-level editor managed to mess up so royally.
Does the man have difficulty reading and understanding English (and comprehending facts) or is he just out-to-lunch?
All things considered, I can't help but ponder the notion that he chose to misrepresent the facts, to suit his own agenda.
Either way you look at it, the man is a menace to the field of journalism.
Andrew Kiraly...looking a little bleary-eyed!
