Reese’s persistent personal crusade against Fairman, Goodwin, and Pajevic shines brightly through his reporting tactics. By cherry-picking information and omitting relevant context, Reese creates a story that aligns with his personal agenda rather than adhering to journalistic standards of impartiality.

His failure to provide a platform for opposing viewpoints or to scrutinize Hoglund’s claims undermines the credibility of his reporting. This one-sided portrayal not only misleads the public but also erodes trust in the journalistic integrity of WAVY TV 10.

Reese’s disregard for journalistic ethics highlights a wider problem prevalent in todays news rooms where sensationalism (yellow journalism) and personal biases frequently outweigh the quest for truth. This not only compromises the credibility of individual journalists but also tarnishes the reputation of the entire news outlet.  As long as journalistic integrity remains compromised, the public must learn how to recognize fact from fiction and hold media outlets accountable for their irresponsible reporting practices.

View Article

Location: York County, VA

Author: Brian Reese, Digital Producer, WAVY.com news organization

Date: May 1, 2024

Title: ‘Teachers are fearful’: York County teacher accused of harassment by school board member speaks out

• Article Title Bias: The title of this article implies a negative connotation by labeling all York County teachers as “fearful” of York County School Board members, where Brian Reese sets a partisan tone right from the outset.
• Framing and Intent: The article frames Todd Hoglund as a whistleblower and paints a picture of a school board embroiled in controversy. By emphasizing Hoglund’s 18-year teaching experience and commitment to his students, the article attempts to position him as a trustworthy and selfless figure fighting for justice.
• Highlighting Hoglund’s Accusations:
  • The story is primarily told from Hoglund’s viewpoint, with significant support from like-minded individuals, which indicates a bias towards validating his experiences and criticisms over a more balanced reporting approach.
  • The article prominently features Todd Hoglund’s accusations against board members Lynda Fairman, Kimberly Goodwin, and Zoran Pajevic, alleging their ties to a local militia and involvement in retaliatory behavior against the superintendent. It amplifies Hoglund’s perspective that these individuals are engaged in divisive practices and that many voters were unaware of their “far-right methodology.”
• Portraying Todd Hoglund as a Proponent of Truth:
  • The article extensively highlights Hoglund’s role in speaking up for teachers and students.
  • It emphasizes his belief that the new school board members are detrimental to the county and should be held accountable.
• Targets and Accusations:
  • York County School Board Majority: The article highlights Chair Lynda Fairman, Vice Chair Kimberly Goodwin, and member Zoran Pajevic as a majority with “far-right methodology” and ties to a local militia. This claim is presented as a catalyst for Hoglund’s activism, casting the board in a negative light.
  • Kimberly Goodwin: The article scrutinizes Goodwin’s handling of Hoglund’s emails, implying she may have overstepped by accusing Hoglund of harassment. The narrative suggests that Goodwin is avoiding transparency and accountability.
  • Shandor: It emphasizes accusations of retaliation against Superintendent Shandor by these members.
  • Alan Kennedy: A critic of the board, is cited describing their actions as a “pattern of intimidation” and their impact as having a “chilling effect” on the community.
• Undermining the Board Members’ Perspective:
  • Although Goodwin’s decision to withdraw the harassment complaint is noted, the article portrays her actions as inconsistent and influenced by external pressure.
  • The board members are described as engaging in behaviors that cause fear and intimidation, reflecting the article’s bias against them.
• Expert Opinion on First Amendment Rights:
  • There is a quote from attorney Tim Schulte on Hoglund’s right to ask questions, which seems to bolster Hoglund’s side, without equally emphasizing Goodwin’s right to decline answering.
  • Tim Schulte’s comment that Goodwin has a right not to respond to Hoglund’s questions is included, but the narrative continues to imply that Goodwin’s lack of response was unjustified.
• Bias and One-Sided Reporting:
  • Selective Presentation of Facts: The article quotes Hoglund extensively, positioning his perspective as the primary narrative while limiting the response from the board members accused. Goodwin’s rationale for not pursuing her harassment complaint is included but framed with skepticism.
  • Supportive Opinions: The article includes opinions from individuals who align with Hoglund’s viewpoint, such as Grafton Middle School Principal Tianna Anthony and Professor Alan Kennedy, who criticize the new board majority for intimidation and chilling free speech.
  • Sympathy and Authority: The article uses quotes from Alan Kennedy, a professor, and Tim Schulte, an attorney, to validate Hoglund’s stance and dismiss the board majority’s credibility. Principal Tianna Anthony’s support for Hoglund adds to this portrayal.
• Emotional Language and Imagery:
  • Terms like “fearful,” “scary behavior,” and “divisive” are used to describe the actions of the board and its supporters, suggesting an attempt to evoke fear and concern over the “retaliatory behavior” of the board majority, including references to alleged doxxing and intimidation.
  • Hoglund’s commitment to his students and family is repeatedly emphasized to create an emotional connection with readers.
• Lack of Counterpoint:
  • Despite quoting Goodwin, the article lacks a substantial exploration of her or the board’s side of the story, leading to a perception of bias in favor of Hoglund.
  • The voices and motivations of the board members are left unexplored, reducing the opportunity for a balanced view.
• Todd Hoagland Public Comments:
  • Brian Reese completely ignores previous comments by Todd Hoagland made during previous board meetings:
    • 29 January Board meeting:
      • Likening the new school board members to Special Needs children: “Functions can be anything like escape or avoidance of something that they don’t prefer, seeking attention from peers and adults, sensory stimulation if they’re feeling dysregulated, or obtaining a tangible such as a toy, food, access to preferred activity or control.
      • “Then all three of the new board members voted to fire Dr. Shandor.” – Untrue
    • 26 February Board Meeting:
      • “So I’m here again to address the behavior of the school board. Last month I outlined a functional behavior assessment to determine the function of your behavior and asked you for evidence of your outstanding claims. I was going to continue with my cute little analogy, but I got too much to say to be cute.”
      • “If you cannot follow these behaviors, please resign.”
    • 25 March 2024 Board Meeting: – Some more denigrating comments.
      • “I’ve previously spoken at the school board about the behavior of the board. I’ve gone over the functions of your behavior. I’ve also outlined a behavior intervention plan.”
      • “I have taught students throughout my 18 year career that were unable or unwilling to verbally respond or to speak at all. I find myself in another situation where I’m finding people that are unable or unwilling to communicate this board.”
      • “You do not include people that don’t look like you or think like you, and that’s a problem.”
      • “Your cultural competency is lacking.”
      • “I’m going to leave you with this. This is a communication chart. If you can’t email me, just tell me yes or no.”

This analysis suggests that the article could be seen as a hit piece against the new school board members, emphasizing a single, negative perspective while minimizing or questioning the credibility and responses of the other side. The focus on fear, alleged misconduct, and retaliation, coupled with emotional and potentially biased reporting, contributes to a narrative that is designed to portray the board in a hostile light. The article frames the story from a specific perspective that implicitly and explicitly supports Hoglund’s position, often providing a less nuanced portrayal of the school board members’ viewpoints.  Overall, the article appears to aim at influencing public perception by emphasizing Hoglund’s version of events while subtly casting doubt on the integrity of the board majority, indicative of an extremely biased narrative.