It is shoddy because it clearly shows an agenda and bias. It's why many people now view companies like sacbee as advocacy groups rather than news organization.
It's just Man Bites Dog in action. If states shared data about a murder or something that everyone agrees should be prosecuted, it wouldn't be interesting. Nobody cares about that, because we all agree that if you drive to another state to shoot someone, you should be prosecuted for that.
The fact that a Sheriff is sharing data that could be used for a controversial prosecution is interesting and worthy of reporting on.
Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be sharing licence part reader info with ANYONE, at least without a warrant. For murder or not.
Now it sounds like they are sharing all the data for everyone, which is different than sharing the data in a specific person.
I would also be interested in how a state will prosecute someone for doing something legal.
There is no neutral reporting. The act of deciding to publish something on page one is an inherent choice NOT to publish other things there. The facts are there, show me the lie in this article (vs the “choice of what to highlight”) which is the only thing that could make it shoddy.
Media both creates and reflects people’s attention and anyone pretending it’s only one or the other is showing their own bias.
