Hello all,
I just wanted pass along a few notes and updates on our investigative stories into Brushy Creek Kennel and more. You can still view all the stories at the links posted by V at the top of this thread. While you're at it, here's another story from Randy Wallace that aired last night (Monday) that I think everyone might be interested in. Even if you're not from the Houston area, it could prompt you to find out more about the policies of your local animal control bureau:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.1.1
As far as Brushy Creek Kennel goes, we are not done with our investigation. Like the first two stories we aired, our third part prompted an avalanche of emails. Many with new stories to tell about this kennel. We have way too many sources on this story to end it now. As I have mentioned before, in over 7 years at Fox, I have never seen so many people come forward to contribute to a story. More to come!
As far as our most recent stories on Brushy Creek, I cannot tell you how fortunate we were in being allowed to produce such an in-depth and comprehensive report. I invite everyone to check their wristwatch while watching the local news. You will see every single story lasts between 15 seconds and 2 minutes. Most in-depth stories last between 90 seconds and 120 seconds. Once in a blue moon with an extremely interesting story and a overly-generous news director, you will see a 5 minute story. Anything longer usually involves a declaration of war. Even the overblown Anna Nicole Smith stories topped out at 2 minutes. Our 2 parts on Brushy Creek Kennel last week totalled 8 minutes. I can work here another 50 years and not get that kind of time for a story again- especially during the sweeps ratings period. That is the main reason I asked all of you to voice your opinions to our website email. I wanted to make sure our managers knew that, in the opinion of viewers, it was not a mistake to allot so much time to one story. I can tell you the input was heard and everyone was very pleased with the end product. That is why we are being encouraged to stay on this.
Some of you thought we weren't hard enough on Mr. Moore. A few of you thought we were too hard on him. We know we've done a good job in being fair when we hear from both extremes. When we interviewed people about their dealings with Brushy Creek, I thought we would have time to air more of their comments. Two things changed that. Our attorneys were very careful not to air anything that couldn't be documented or confirmed by multiple sources. So some fascinating comments just could not be aired. Also, judging from past rejections, we didn't feel that Mr. Moore would comment for our story. After giving him one more chance by showing up at his property, he made a wise decision and changed his mind and spoke with us on camera. This certainly made him look better than not talking and allowing for 8 minutes of complaints about him to run in our report. By giving him a fair shot and allowing him time to tell his side of the story, we had to cut out many of the comments from others. Again, if you want to put a wristwatch to our report, you will see he was allowed to speak much more than anyone else. In fact, in part 2 of our series, he spoke on 7 occasions. No one else spoke more than 2 times-most of them once.
Did we bend over backwards in our efforts to be fair? No. We bent over backwards, did five cartwheels, 2 back flips, a somersault and a handstand. No one has ever received such an opportunity to state his case in an investigative story. This was unprecedented. But considering the nature of the accusations, we felt it was fair.
Again, I can't thank everyone at YT enough. You made this story possible. Many of you, especially Villette, provided valuable information that was essential to our efforts. As I said, we are not done. I will post again when updates are warranted.
David