Journalism!

The whole state - excuse me, the whole region - may be encased in ice, but Rhode Island's titans of worthwhile journalism forge on. Note today's article in the ProJo about some lady who got pulled over for suspected DUI. We may be a small state, but are DUIs rare enough to warrant statewide coverage? No, they are not. What makes this story of utmost importance to everyone is that the woman in question was a jerk to a police officer:

Patrol Officer Micah W. Chapman arrived, and [Ms.] Lane agreed to a field-sobriety test. She refused to change out of her boots with 3-inch heels into a pair of shoes or to perform the test in her socks, [Officer Gregory T.] Miga said. She swayed and lost her balance and refused to provide a preliminary breath sample, he said.

Told that she was being arrested on suspicion of DUI and placed in handcuffs in the back of the cruiser, “Lane became increasingly belligerent and stated, ‘I’m a nurse and I can’t wait to see you on the operating table,’ ” Miga wrote, saying she swore at both officers “and requested that we ‘go arrest a real criminal.’ ”

So. This woman was an ass. She not only refused to take off her non-sensible shoes to take a sobriety test, but she issued a not-very-veiled threat to kill the arresting officers on the operating table should they require surgery at her hospital. Who knew nurses liked to throw their weight around like that? Anyway, she definitely behaved poorly. But ProJo coverage? Clearly someone wanted to make sure that this person was as embarrassed as possible by her behavior, and the paper was happy to oblige. And why? For the commenters, of course! Oh, ProJo commenters. Is there nothing you don't have an opinion about? Do you never say to yourself, "I feel a certain way about something, but the rest of the world doesn't need to know what it is, just this once?" What sets the ProJo apart from many other newspapers (aside from its skeleton staff, lack of copy editors, and an over-reliance on wire services for content) is its willingness to let the public comment. On everything.

You say the height of a planned wind turbine in North Kingstown has been lowered? Someone's got a comment about it. There's lots of snow on the ground? Comments. Some Cranston doctor has revolutionized the way medical records are kept? You bet that has comments. And you can bet that those comments are often nasty, off-topic, and poorly spelled. It's not that I'm against comments -- they're a valuable communication tool and they have their place. But everywhere? For everything? It follows that when half of the copy on your website is commenter-sourced, eventually the articles will cater to the commenters, and then you get the journalistic equivalent of a bucket of chum in the form of a nurse who was a jackass to a cop. A nurse who appears to have lost her job, according to the article:

Lane responded by Facebook, saying: “I no longer work at Kent [Hospital], and I have no comment on the charges, nor does my lawyer. Thank you for the opportunity.”

Oh, ProJo. Nevermind that you don't say who or what she responded to, but Facebook? Really? That's your source? Well done.