First and most importantly, I appreciate that many of our viewers took to respond to our news story on Virginia Employment Services owner James O'Leary. I would like to provide some context to what you saw on video. It is much bigger than the clip that shows me pursuing O'Leary for a response.
I was just as surprised as many of you that after O'Leary prevailed in court facing "threat to kill" and "assault" charges that he would push and shove his way out of the courtroom. I sat behind Mr. O'Leary in court. He was well aware that I would be asking a few questions as he left the courtroom.
We didn't ask the first question before O'Leary struck out at me and our cameras. But those few seconds are not, and should not be, the headline.
My pursuit of Mr. O'Leary was an attempt to get him to answer for his business practices that have resulted in lawsuits and state investigations. I never anticipated that he would have a 6-foot-4 bodyguard in an effort to avoid questions on his way out of the courthouse. What's more, at no time did he say, "No comment," or "Get out of my way," so I continued to get a comment from them.
It's my wish to put the spotlight back on the subjects of this story--the unemployed who are now a part of a lawsuit just brought by the state, that says O'Leary took advantage of desperate job seekers, many teetering on bankruptcy, in the worst economy in generations.
How did this story shift from the VES clients to the reporter covering the event? Our partners at the Daily Press -- in my opinion -- jumped in with both feet, eager to condemn our coverage and our reporting as we demanded answers from James O'Leary.
First, columnist Tamara Dietrich of The Daily Press stated: "I don't know these guys and the charges and frankly, don't care."
What an unfortunate attitude for someone charged with fully and fairly informing the public.
What's more she posted the story without so much as a voicemail to give me a chance to respond.
If the columnist had done her homework she would have learned that The Daily Press aided O'Leary's business by publishing advertisements that lured readers into what the state's top law-enforcement officer has called a terrible fraud.
This isn't the first time Mr. O'Leary has attracted the attention of authorities. The Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney's Office settled with another O'Leary company, Jobs Plus, Inc., in 2006 in its authority under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Since then, it has collected complaints about the other three companies, but turned those complaints over to the Attorney General's Office on March 27, 2009.
The Attorney General's Office investigated the complaints, obtained extensive records from the targeted companies, and met with representatives. When the companies refused to reimburse consumers or halt prohibited conduct, the Attorney General filed suit.
We have been requesting since last winter an opportunity for O'Leary and his managers to present their side of this story - a chance for O'Leary and his managers to defend their business practices if they feel they were unfairly portrayed by former clients. There were no takers.
As a journalist I consider it my duty to provide a voice to the voiceless, O'Leary has much to answer for. While some newspaper reporters may be satisfied with the standard could-not-be-reached-for-comment, we no longer are.
I was just as surprised as many of you that after O'Leary prevailed in court facing "threat to kill" and "assault" charges that he would push and shove his way out of the courtroom. I sat behind Mr. O'Leary in court. He was well aware that I would be asking a few questions as he left the courtroom.
We didn't ask the first question before O'Leary struck out at me and our cameras. But those few seconds are not, and should not be, the headline.
My pursuit of Mr. O'Leary was an attempt to get him to answer for his business practices that have resulted in lawsuits and state investigations. I never anticipated that he would have a 6-foot-4 bodyguard in an effort to avoid questions on his way out of the courthouse. What's more, at no time did he say, "No comment," or "Get out of my way," so I continued to get a comment from them.
It's my wish to put the spotlight back on the subjects of this story--the unemployed who are now a part of a lawsuit just brought by the state, that says O'Leary took advantage of desperate job seekers, many teetering on bankruptcy, in the worst economy in generations.
How did this story shift from the VES clients to the reporter covering the event? Our partners at the Daily Press -- in my opinion -- jumped in with both feet, eager to condemn our coverage and our reporting as we demanded answers from James O'Leary.
First, columnist Tamara Dietrich of The Daily Press stated: "I don't know these guys and the charges and frankly, don't care."
What an unfortunate attitude for someone charged with fully and fairly informing the public.
What's more she posted the story without so much as a voicemail to give me a chance to respond.
If the columnist had done her homework she would have learned that The Daily Press aided O'Leary's business by publishing advertisements that lured readers into what the state's top law-enforcement officer has called a terrible fraud.
This isn't the first time Mr. O'Leary has attracted the attention of authorities. The Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney's Office settled with another O'Leary company, Jobs Plus, Inc., in 2006 in its authority under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Since then, it has collected complaints about the other three companies, but turned those complaints over to the Attorney General's Office on March 27, 2009.
The Attorney General's Office investigated the complaints, obtained extensive records from the targeted companies, and met with representatives. When the companies refused to reimburse consumers or halt prohibited conduct, the Attorney General filed suit.
We have been requesting since last winter an opportunity for O'Leary and his managers to present their side of this story - a chance for O'Leary and his managers to defend their business practices if they feel they were unfairly portrayed by former clients. There were no takers.
As a journalist I consider it my duty to provide a voice to the voiceless, O'Leary has much to answer for. While some newspaper reporters may be satisfied with the standard could-not-be-reached-for-comment, we no longer are.
