Royko’s lousy interview

This in response to the Mike Royko article in the Jan. 27 edition of the Bangor Daily News titled “Dumb and dumber.”

I’m in a unique position in that my wife is the news director for WAGM News in Presque Isle and I am a detective with the Maine State Police. I feel that I have some insight into the workings of a news organization and, having been interviewed several times over the years, how reporters go about doing their job.

There are several things that upset me about this article. Mr. Royko stated that he has been in the news business for 40 years and has covered more than 1,000 court hearings in that time. With that in mind, he is shocked that a news reporter would try to speak with a criminal defendant, Mr. Royko, for a direct quote instead of going with standard procedural story from inside the courtroom.

Mr. Royko explains that he was in court to answer to a charge, as he terms it flippantly, of “driving under the influence of genuine 86 proof skull-popper,” then goes to some length explaining how stupid and brainless a reporter was for asking him what happened in the courtroom that day. The reason he felt this was such a stupid question was because anyone could have gone into the courtroom and written about the proceedings firsthand. This didn’t strike me as all that unusual for a reporter to attempt to interview the defendant in a criminal case.

Who would have better knowledge of what happened than the defendant, aside from the perspective that this would be the defendant’s opportunity to discuss his side of the story. Mr. Royko chose instead to call the reporters outside the courtroom idiots, the camera person a “trade school drop-out” and the sketch artist in the courtroom for the news a “second-rate artist.”

After establishing to his own satisfaction how stupid the reporter was asking the question, he explains, to his own delight, how clever he was by asking her questions that made her neck throb and to which she did not give satisfactory answers. He explains that the only reason this reporter had a job was because she had a “pretty face and a shapely bottom.” He even mentioned that under different circumstances he would have “put a hickey” on this reporter’s throbbing neck.

His opinion is quite clear that no one who is attractive could possibly have a brain with which to think. I know that even in a small television market like northern Maine, a person doesn’t even get an interview for a job without a bachelor of arts in journalism.

Mr. Royko has apparently dismissed the notion that “there is no such thing as a stupid question.” I have always found that any question yields information of some kind, so I don’t mind asking anything that comes to mind. My experience with reporters is that they are trying to get a unique perspective on a story that distinguishes it from the other news agencies’ stories. Mr. Royko estimates that this “pretty” reporter makes $100,000 a year for being so stupid. How much does Mr. Royko make for writing columns about his own stupidity, that is, drunk driving?

Mr. Royko appears to be having a literary tantrum over something that is ultimately his doing. I also find it hard to believe that during the course of sitting through 1,000 hearings, Mr. Royko has never witnessed any of the tragedies resulting from people being under the influence of “genuine 86 proof skull-popper.”

Over the last 17 years as a law enforcement officer, I have seen far too many instances where people were killed by other people under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. These cases, often times, involve the innocent party being killed while the person on “genuine 86 proof skull-popper” is left to blame everyone but himself for his troubles. This appears to be the case with Mr. Royko and I was not amused by any portion of the article.

Mr. Royko’s attack on his own profession was embarrassing and insulting as was his attempt to gain any sympathy for his problem. My feeling is that Mr. Royko choosing to drive while under the influence of alcohol does not place him in the top 2 percent of smart people in the world.

Any acceptance of responsibility on Mr. Royko’s part would have him titling this article, “Dumbest,” and denouncing drunk drivers, not making light of the situation.

He should consider himself fortunate that he was stopped and charged with driving under the influence before it became a vehicular manslaughter.

John Dyer lives in Presque Isle.