[May 30, 2009] Getting the whole story Tweet May 30, 2009 (The News & Observer - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The case of 16-year-old Ashton Lundeby, taken from his Oxford house by federal agents in March and accused of making a bomb threat, became an Internet sensation this month. For better and for worse. Coverage of the case began April 29 when WRAL aired a story built around comments from his mother, Annette. She said her son had been taken from her house under the Patriot Act, enacted in 2001 to fight terrorism. He was accused of phoning a threat that led to the clearing of a building at Purdue University. He is being held in Indiana. "We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," Annette Lundeby told WRAL. Half of that story was about the Patriot Act, including comments from a former prosecutor. Federal prosecutors did not initially comment, making it difficult to get the full story. In the blogosphere, the story exploded. A story on associatedcontent.com said, "Calls to free 16-year-old Ashton Lundeby are circulating across the Internet as word of his Patriot Act detention spreads." The headline read: "Free Ashton Lundeby Movement Gains Momentum: Bloggers Cite Lundeby Case as Grounds for Patriot Act Repeal." When The N&O inquired, the U.S. attorney in Indiana said the case was unrelated to the Patriot Act. We reported that May 8. Lundeby told us that the Patriot Act connection was her interpretation. "None of the law enforcement officers used that term," she told us. "But I knew by their actions that it was the Patriot Act. What else could it be?" It has been against the law for decades to make a bomb threat by phone. The original WRAL story was built around Lundeby's impressions. But she isn't a lawyer; she's a widow and a mother worried about her jailed teenage son. This story got plenty of commentary. What it needed was more reporting. Blogs are great at stirring debate. They can point out gaps in published stories. And they can raise the profile of a story. This was a story that needed to be told. When a 16-year-old is removed from his home and detained halfway across the country, it is worth reporting. I wish The N&O had moved quicker. But with some exceptions, blogs don't often break new ground in reporting. The vast majority of what was written online about the Lundeby case was misinformed speculation. The leading exception was journalist Kevin Poulsen of wired.com. Poulsen calls sources to seek and verify information -- which many bloggers do not. On May 6, he raised questions about Lundeby's claim that the Patriot Act was involved. He said Ashton had a court-appointed attorney and had appeared before a judge. The next day, Poulsen reported that Ashton had made prank phone calls for a live Internet audience. His mother confirmed that for Poulsen but said the calls were harmless. Poulsen did good work. So did our reporters, Ruth Sheehan and Anne Blythe. Good reporting is good reporting, whether it comes from a blog or from a traditional news outlet. The Internet is dominated by commentary. But as the Lundeby case shows, without good reporting, the commentary is worthless. [email protected] or 919-829-4515 To see more of The News & Observer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.newsobserver.com. Copyright (c) 2009, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA. [ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]