A Las Vegas, Nevada family court judge was recently in the news over his alleged involvement in questionable financial transactions with questionable people.
The theme of one article was that the judge must answer for that reported financial misconduct to the authorities and to the voters who elected him.
But a story within the story drew little attention. And that’s both sad and telling.
One particular article about the judge’s alleged foibles runs approximately 725 words.
Of those 725 words, barely 50 words were allocated to the judge’s “arrest on a domestic battery charge involving his live-in girlfriend” and the hearing on “whether to extend a temporary protective order in the battery case”.
The passing, nearly dismissive reference virtually implies that that judge need not be accountable for that reported domestic violence, that that alleged misconduct has no bearing on the judge’s fitness for his judicial office.
This although the judge presides over family court, where victims and innocent, captive bystanders to domestic violence desperately seek protection from the family court judge … in this instance, a judge who allegedly himself perpetrates domestic violence and, therefore, presumably identifies more with the victimizers than the victims.
The story within the story is every bit as newsworthy and important as the featured story. Why isn’t it treated that way?