I wrote to his email but took it a step further. This was the first email it was obvious he wasn't going to reply to:
_____
Inflammatory Drone Article
You did a story on the 'drone' on this person's camera. Some things I noticed just looking at the camera and the article:
- This camera system is brand new to her, she's never seen a nighttime video before
- The 'drone' appears to be at a 25-degree angle to the ground constantly... this just isn't how drones work
- The light repeats the pattern on the same part of the screen over and over... at an angle
It looks like headlights of cars passing by but you go ahead and keep inflaming the people that think drone operators are actually doing this.
Poor reporting.
'It's disgusting'; surveillance shows drone flying outside woman's window at night
_____
It was easy to figure out the email naming convention for the station and I went ahead and forwarded that email to ALL of his fellow reporters at the station:
_____
Good afternoon,
As I sit here and read the hundreds of comments on Eric's Facebook link to this article and a direct message to him asking why he seems to be sticking by this story I'm saddened. His only response is apparently blocking me or ignoring the message after reading it so I'll ask this of his colleagues...
Do YOU stand behind shoddy reporting like this?
I won't go into further reasons why this story is bunk, the comments here and the comments on your Facebook page and Eric's feed tell the real story here. This wasn't a drone, but more likely a reflection or maybe even a spider-web.
In a day and age where the crazy among us chant "Fake News", why give them ammunition to say 'see! I told you so!".
I urge you to speak to your colleague and correct this obvious error. Your station's integrity is at stake.
Thank you,
_____
I cannot stand stupid and fake.