Coakley talked to residents, two local Red Cross workers, and state representative Paul Donato when she sat next to the sign to gauge the public's reaction to it.   I was very concerned about the photo of Red Cross employees Brenna Cunningham and Danielle Touhey printed in the Transcript.  There are actually two pictures, one that appears in the printed version of the Medford Transcript, and one that appears in the story carried by Herald Interactive outlets.  One picture is taken from the storefronts on the sidewalk, and the other from near the curb, and the two women are in exactly the same position.  Brenna is holding a role of tape in one hand, and pulling on the tag end with the other in both photos, and they are both looking down at the sign.

Coakley explained to me that Toni Carolina, the photographer, just happened to be in the office to shoot another assignment, and snapped these two pictures, or else there wouldn't have been a photo accompanying the article.  I was concerned that they were posed, but I accept that explanation.

What I can't accept is that the first business to host the sign was in fact the Medford Transcript -- a fact that was omitted from the story.  I challenged Coakley about this directly in my conversation with her, and she responded that she didn't want to draw attention away from the issue and towards the Transcript.  I respectfully disagree.

The Saturday after the story was published, the Medford Chamber of Commerce held its annual Clippership Day festival in Medford Square.  The Medford Transcript was one of the vendors, and they displayed the sex offender sandwich board in their booth. 

I talked to two of the individuals working the booth (I asked for Coakley, but she was not there at the time).  Both told me that the sign had been in front of the Transcript all week. 

The court decision that the Medford Police department is defying is about the boundaries of the burden of notification, which states, "A level 3 community notification plan shall require the police department to notify organizations in the community which are likely to encounter such sex offender and individual members of the public who are likely to encounter such sex offender."  The intent of the law is clearly not to randomly inform people.  Even though sex offenders are dangerous people, they still have civil rights, and none of the, "Medford Six" are currently wanted by the police. 

A comment attributed to Medford Lieutenant Michael Goulding says, "...if the experiment in Medford Square is successful, he plans to ask other businesses in different spots around the city to host the boards for a week at a time."  Placing the sign on High Street in Medford Square during Clippership Day is arguably within the intent of the law, given the attendence of this event.  The legality of rotating the signs around Medford is less clear.  It's probably legal if the businesses that host them are reasonably close to areas where the sex offenders live, work, or committed a crime, or in locations where families and other potential victims frequent (grocery stores, the library, schools, etc.) and we must hope that this is the standard the Medford Police will apply in asking businesses to host the sandwich board.  What's not clear is how Goulding will determine, "success."  The only definition I can think of is that his program will be successful if there are no civil rights violation lawsuits filed as a result of the sandwich board.

So why am I pointing all this out?  Quite simply, I expect my local police to obey the law, and I expect my local paper to report the news fairly and accurately.  As a Medford parent, I was very frustrated that this article, which looks like a sensational scoop for the Transcript, did not inform me of even the basic issues.  I am a Transcript subsucriber, and I recall seeing articles on the issue before, but this one, with an above-the-fold callout box and photograph, is the most attention-getting story on the issue I can remember.  I do sympathize with the police department, though, because they seem to be legitimately trying to inform the public about a very serious issue. But I expect more from the Medford Transcript - It was probably a well-intended effort to inform the public.  In hosting the sign and not disclosing it, however, the Transcript was actually creating the news and then reporting it (to their benefit).

I have also attempted to contact Lieutenant Goulding of the Medford Police Department (we were disconnected while on hold), and since Coakley is the editor of the Transcript, I also contact the editor in chief of the Community Newsdealers line of newspapers, of which the Transcript is one local outlet.  My call has not been returned at this time.

Hey man, it's no problem, really

Do you have a lighter?

Come on, man, I want to get HIGH

Don't leave me hanging man, it's cool right here