Anthony Galluccio v. Janet Wu
Neil McCabe has an interesting piece in The Alewife today about the reporting by Channel 5's Janet Wu into allegations of drunk driving by Cambridge City Councilor and State Senate Candidate Anthony Galluccio. For those that haven't been following the story, back in February Wu reported that victims of a December car crash in Boston caused by the politician had alleged that he was drunk when the accident occurred, though never subjected to a breathalizer test and charged only with a minor traffic violation. While Galluccio has continued to deny that he was intoxicated at the time, subsequent reports subsequent reports have revealed that Galluccio has twice been convicted of DUIs (one, oddly, was pardoned by Governor William Weld). Boston police have now reopened their investigation of the crash and Galluccio faces a hearing before a Court Magistrate later this month.
My beef here is not with the investigation into allegations of drunk driving -- like any citizen, if Galluccio was impaired at the time he deserves to be punished. Furthermore, given his driving history, I do believe that discussion of past convictions in unwarranted. He clearly has a disturbing pattern that makes me question his fitness for public office.
That being said, McCabe's article raises interesting questions about the fairness of Wu's reporting. As the son of a politician I am extra sensitive about the viciousness with which some reporters seen to deal with elected officials, and I think this is a clear example of such overzealousness.
Take a look at the Real Audio video on the Channel 5 website. When I first saw the report weeks ago I noticed two things: 1)the crash victims are calm, well-prepared, sitting and talking to Wu in a television sound stage, and 2)Galluccio looks like a deer caught in headlights, sweating with a shiny forehead (bad TV presence) standing in Cambridge City Hall. According to McCabe in The Alewife:
The city councilor was going down the stairs after a hearing on the contract renewal for City Manager Robert Healy, when Wu met him on the steps with a microphone, lights and rolling camera.
Does this mean that Wu caught Galluccio off-guard, essentially surprising him with these allegations? Why should these individuals who make serious criminal allegations against Galluccio (one of whom remains anonymous during the interview) being given more preparation time and be allowed to look much better on camera? Is this what counts for fair-reporting in the "mainstream media' these days?
To be clear, this is no defense of Galluccio. In fact, I'm not even a political fan of his -- I think his record (including strong opposition to rent control) proves he's far from the progressive legislator I would like to have. However, I feel strongly the Galluccio was wronged by Wu in this reporting. In their interview his allegors insist that, even as a politician, Galluccio is entitled to no special treatment and should have been subject to a breathalizer just as they would have been. I agree with that, but shouldn't the same be said for Wu's reporting?
Contribute to Deval