That water story from Friday? Nope, I just can't let it go.
The issue for me is not the legality of providing assistance to people crossing the border illegally. I freely admit I don't know what should be done, but I certainly wouldn't deny aid to anyone in need. It just feels like I may have missed something in not questioning an elected official's role in this activity. Should he be involved in anything that supports an illegal activity? As a point of journalistic responsibility, should I or someone from my station have questioned his involvement?
It's not a judgement of placing the water. A charitable act isn't always going to be defined by what's "legal".
Ultimately, I hold myself responsible for being asleep at the wheel and not asking the question of Villaragosa when I had the chance. I'm not a reporter and there are actually union agreements that I have to follow. From where I stand, that union stuff isn't really what's important here. I feel like beating myself up a little and I probably have the right. See, I didn't even think to ask the question until the next day.
People who work in the news? We are not perfect. Given the opportunity, we might (under the right circumstances) admit that we're not perfect. It's a human thing to make mistakes. Regardless of how this situation should have been handled, I hope people who read my blog keep this in mind for me and anyone working in "the media".
We are still just human.
I'll get him next time.
(I think he's doing a good thing by supporting the water drive, but when I'm on the clock, it's not my job to make that call. I should be fair, unbiased, and balanced in what I do. Without making a judgement in regards to the people or issues involved. On this story? Yeah, I missed something here.)