Earlier this week WMC Newschannel 5, the NBC affiliate in Memphis, kicked off the February ratings period with an "exclusive" feature: a patron in a McMinnville, Tennessee restaurant had taken cell phone photos of Mary Winkler on New Years. For the unfamiliar, Winkler is the preacher's wife accused of murdering her husband in Selmer, Tennessee and fleeing with her kids to Alabama last March. As she awaits trial, she's living with her kids in McMinnville, about four hours east of Selmer.
Considering she's a preacher's wife, these photos were supposed to show a different side of Winkler. Instead of showing the grieving widow or allegedly abused wife who has been taken in and supported by good church folk, the photos were supposed to show how Winkler might be taking advantage of all that goodwill. They might, if the photos weren't so damn blurry. WMC says, “In the pictures featured [...] you can see her bellied up to a bar, cigarette in hand and a bottle of beer in front of her.”
To be sure, you have to read between the lines: "the beer in front of her." After paying for these pictures, WMC could not confirm whether the beer actually belonged to Winkler, but the station tries to establish guilt by association nonetheless. Winkler's attorney denied the beer belonged to his client, and even if it did she wasn't violating the conditions of her release. She can drink, but not in excess. She was at a restaurant, not a bar.
In the Memphis newspaper, Commercial Appeal, Winkler's attorney Steve Farese said, "It's like Mrs. Kravitz on Bewitched," referring to a character from the 1960s TV sitcom. "There's always some nosy neighbor who wants to gossip and make something out of nothing. That's the way the world is. People wanting to interject themselves into a story."
This is particularly interesting, especially at a time when media outlets are encouraging citizens to contribute to the news. How should the media weed out people who simply want to "interject themselves"? Better yet, what extra work should the media do to make sure these citizen contributions are in proper context?
Article comments
1 - Wayne
Richard,
Your commentary is just a bit askew on the facts here.
Winkler is not living with her children. The children are in the custody of their paternal grand-parents. Mousy-looking mate murderers don't get treated any differently from the rest.
The other thing that's missing from consideration in your critique of the story is that the person who took the photo's had his story corroborated by the owner of the bar and grill. The owner said that Winkler had come by for drinks at his place at least a few times. This may have been a restaurant as you note in the story, but Ms. Winkler was certainly using it "bar functions", not the restaurant ones.
The main issue here is that Winkler has been soaking in the money from conservative church folks around that town and it turns out that she's spending it on things that they abhor. They have a right to know that.
2 - Richard Thompson
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for reading. Sometimes, things get miscontrued during the editing process.
I'm well aware that Winkler does not live with her kids in McMinnville.
And yes, Winkler had been to that restaurant before -- three or four times over a several month period. That's not a pattern by any means. Also, it's not against the law for someone to smoke a cigarette in a restaurant.
I'm not arguing against the public's right to know, however it's important for every story to have proper context. And even in the WMC's story, it was mentioned that she did nothing to violate the conditions of her release.
So, where's the story?
Thanks
RT
3 - Nancy
Just the MSM making a mountain out of a molehill, while the real mountains go unmentioned, as usual.