New York Personal Injury Law Blog » Connecticut Post, Daniel Tepfer, Media

 

October 15th, 2015

The Media Hit Job on the Evil Aunt

Connecticut PostSo we all know about that super, duper evil aunt who sued her 8-year-old nephew when he jumped into her arms and she fell and broke her arm, right?

And it turned out she wasn’t really super, duper evil, or even a little bit evil, and took the kid Halloween costume shopping recently.

It was just a suit against the homeowner’s policy. So how and why did it go viral?

It’s because of the way that Daniel Tepfer of the Connecticut Post, who I think is the author of the initial piece, wrote the original, slanted article (or the way his editor re-wrote it to bait readers).

Sure, the part about the kid being 8 was mildly interesting, and led to the suit being lost, because kids will be kids. An OK local story I guess. Maybe they’d get a few hundred clicks.

The part about suing a relative is a complete non-issue, because, as I explained yesterday, relatives (and close friends) sue each other all the time since they are the ones most likely to be in the home, or in the crashing car, when the injuries take place. But it doesn’t mean they are going after personal assets.

No, the part that sizzled and engaged the Internet Outrage Machine!!!! were the ways the boy was described and the minimizing of the injuries.

We now know, for example, that the woman had two surgeries and may need another on her busted wrist despite it being four years later. So that sounds to me like a nasty fracture. But that is not what Tepfer & Co. presented. No, this was what he presented the woman’s injuries:

“I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walk-up so it has been very difficult,” she said. “And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan.”

And then there is the damage the injury has done to Connell’s social life.

“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.

There was no mention of surgeries (which included internal hardware, according to the complaint), or the difficulties with activities of daily living that would come with a busted wing. Not the part about trying to dress one-handed, doing buttons, tying laces, showering, cooking, cleaning, typing or simply cutting a piece of food. Try it sometime, dear reader, try it. Go a whole morning one-handed.

But as presented by Tepfer, it was about walking up stairs and holding an hors d’oeuvre plate.

Ahh, the hors d’oeuvre plate! That was the thing that so many commenters seemed to pick up on. Not the pain and incapacity with injury and surgery, no sirree. Nope. Because it was left out of the article.

Tepfler then did the same thing in a follow-up piece after the defense verdict. This was his lede:

The case of the aunt who sued her young nephew over a reckless birthday hug, may have hinged on a plate of hors d’oeuvres.

Now when you think about it, having pain while just trying to hold a small plate of food four years later would be significant to anyone. But only in context, and that context was stripped away by Tepfer and the CT Post.

I can think of only three reasons why Tepfer  decided to write such a slanted article:

1.  He was more interested in mocking the aunt and writing clickbait than doing journalism;

2.  He was sloppy and lazy; or

3.  He ran out of room to write because the web, as everyone knows, sharply limits your ability to describe a broken wrist.

Take your pick.  But since he followed up with a second piece, that led with his diminishing the extent of the injuries, I think #1 is a pretty safe bet.

It trying to evaluate why Tepfer did this to her, you might also consider this little nugget that he wrote about the kid:

In court Friday, the boy, now 12 years old, appeared confused as he sat with his father..

Was the boy actually confused? Was he intrigued? Fascinated by the proceedings? Was there something about the boy, now 12, that led Tepfer to believe he was incapable of understanding that this was a mere claim against an insurance policy?  When my kids were 12, they were certainly able of understand these things. They wanted to go to court with me and see what it was like.

Maybe it just made better reading to have a confused boy and an aunt that sued him because she couldn’t hold a plate of  hors d’oeuvres? Actual truth — as in the fly-on-the-wall, gods-eye-view truth of what actually happened — seems to be missing. Truthiness is good enough, I suppose, for the Internet. As long as it gets clicks.

So congratulations to Tepfer and the CT Post. You got a shitload of eyeballs at your site for your clickbait. You can now charge more for ads.

And you only had to sacrifice your professionalism and dignity in order to do it.

(An email was sent to Tepfer this morning soliciting comment. He has not yet responded.)

 

25 thoughts on “The Media Hit Job on the Evil Aunt”

  1. I think that it’s perhaps extreme to call this a “Media Hit Job”, not to defend the original author, but this went viral completely independent from him. Biased towards sensationalism and laziness? Absolutely. But he’s in a field that desperately needs an ethics compass overhaul, and that might be the bigger story here. Things like this explode without much catalyst to the source.

    As a complete aside…. The notorious hors d’oeuvres plate. What’s your opinion on the lawyer including that detail? It seems like it opened the aunt to criticism, and didn’t serve much if any purpose.

    • As a complete aside…. The notorious hors d’oeuvres plate. What’s your opinion on the lawyer including that detail? It seems like it opened the aunt to criticism, and didn’t serve much if any purpose.

      I wasn’t there, so I can only imagine what happened based on 30 years of experience:

      After giving a litany of problems over the past 4 years — her surgeries where hardware was put in and then taken out, listing mundane and routine things that she can’t do or have been difficult or painful to do — she finally arrives in the present. And she testifies about her present condition where she may need another surgery, and that it still hurts so much that she can’t even hold a little hors d’oeuvres plate without pain.

      And the “journalist” sees his opportunity for mockery.

  2. Are you 100 percent positive that you have the correct photo for this journalist?
    I don’t know him at all, or what he looks like, but my skepticism rose because of the following:
    1) On twitter, the journalist lists 30 years of experience with court reporting and the man in this picture does not appear to be in his 50 or 60s.
    2) The picture looks very much like apparently-renowned pianist Dan Tepfer, who comes up first in a google images search for that name. http://www.dantepfer.com/about.php

    Thanks,
    Jessie

  3. The thing that I don’t understand is, why did the suit go forward in the first place?

    I did a little research when I first read about the injury, and there’s an appeal process when a medical insurance company denies your claim. If the insurance company denies your claim after the appeal, you can appeal that to an independent body. Did this case go through that process?

    It seems like if you’re at the point where you’re suing your brother or sister’s home insurance company for damages, things have already gone wrong. Am I wrong on that?

    • The thing that I don’t understand is, why did the suit go forward in the first place?

      You’re way too deep in the weeds. This post was about how the Connecticut Post sensationalized the matter, duping people along the way with the clickbait it created. I have no idea what her own health insurance did, or did not, cover, or even if she had it.

    • The more I thought about this story, the more it seemed like the reporter had been incredibly deceptive in picking out details to include.

      In the old days, I think a reputable news organization would call someone in on the carpet for such sensationalizing.

      But he’s probably getting high fives, fist bumps and a raise.

  5. I understand that the article was sensational, but the idea you started off with was that the aunt wasn’t super-duper evil, or even a little bit evil, for suing an 8-year old. My problem with your assertion isn’t that the article isn’t sensational. Of course it is. But that’s different from the question of whether the reporter treated her unfairly and made her look more evil or avaricious than she was.

    Whether she had any other choice but to sue her nephew’s family is not a small matter in that regard. If she had another choice, her pain and suffering, however real, is beside the point.

    • Whether she had any other choice but to sue her nephew’s family is not a small matter in that regard.

      As I said, it happens with some regularity that family and friends sue each other. But that doesn’t mean they want to go after personal assets. If there is compensation from an insurer, then fine, that is why we pay premiums.

      And this was borne out today when the aunt and the kid appeared on The Today Show together to say they would never do anything to hurt each other and that they loved each other.

      This this was not a big deal to them (as I fully expected). And that is what matters.

  6. This was an accident and medical insurance would cover it if the patient has insurance. The court system should not be a substitute for medical insurance. It is horribly inefficient to waste the time for lawyers, judge, jury and the young nephew to be involved in something like this. This is a type of scam on the homeowner insurance company. We need universal healthcare to put a halt to these absurdly incestuous actions.

    • This was an accident and medical insurance would cover it if the patient has insurance.

      I have not seen any information on what her insurance did, or did not, cover. I decline to speculate.

  7. Pingback: The Evil Aunt Who Wasn’t | In•de•fix•a

  8. How often do the mainstream get any story really right? Certainly not when it involves going below the surface. It’s all about clickbait-friendly headlines and scenarios. But actual truth?

  9. Originally Posted By MitchellHow often do the mainstream get any story really right? Certainly not when it involves going below the surface. It’s all about clickbait-friendly headlines and scenarios. But actual truth?

    With all due respect, the outlets that lost their shit over this non-story were not mainstream.

  10. Broken wrists can be nasty. Just google images for “Colles fracture”, which is what you usually get if you fall unexpectedly and instinctively catchourself.

    What I wonder, though is why didn’t the aunt have medical coverage from her job that would obviate the need for suing the child.

  11. Pingback: The gleeful bashing of women | Just some things I'm working out

  13. You underestimate the intelligence of the journalist and the audience. A lawsuit is a lawsuit, period. It is not a game of skittles. She sued her nephew to try and get money out of his father’s insurance policy, and the world noticed. She didn’t sue the insurance company for rejecting her claim in bad faith, she didn’t sue the father, she sued the nephew. And if she didn’t enjoy the resultant publicity she should have thought more about how that would look in print.

    • She sued her nephew to try and get money out of his father’s insurance policy

      Ergo it is completely OK to write a distorted piece of yellow journalism that mis-portrays the injuries that she suffered?

      • The reporter reported accurately on the claims she made to try and get money from somebody else’s insurance policy. If those claims look bad in print that is not the reporter’s fault. (Speaking as a reporter) The reaction to the story was mostly her tactic for getting money, which obviously struck many people as questionable.

        • The reporter reported accurately on the claims she made to try and get money from somebody else’s insurance policy.

          Bullshit. I think he deliberately slanted the article to demonize her, and a large part of that was his pretending that she didn’t have real injuries. ‘Oh look, she can’t hold an hors d’oeuvre plate. Poor baby.”

          The sad part was that so many real media outlets got taken and just lapped it up.

          • I don’t think anybody got “taken.” She did testify in open court about the hors d’oeurves. I did wonder, when I saw the headlines, if anybody would report on the actual legal maneuver at work here and few did, which is a shame. People should know that relatives are suing relatives to get money from their homeowners’ and car policies, which of course gets passed through to other ratepayers.

          • Someone might ask Daniel Tepfer if he was, in fact, actually present in the courtroom in order to provide this “accurate,” unbiased report. Or perhaps one might ask the people present that day if they ever laid eyes on Daniel Tepfer. Or, one might ask: How did Daniel Tepfer deduce the true meaning of the child’s facial expression when he was A. most definitely not present when the child was in the court room and he is B. drawing his deduction from “sources” who were looking at the back of the child’s head and do not know the child in order to extrapolate his feelings or thoughts based on his facial expression?

            It seems not was Mr. Tepfer bold-faced in writing a slanted article, but he failed to even attempt to present any balance to the story in order to avoid the appearance of intentional biased gotcha journalism. It is sad enough that media organizations across the globe picked up the news story without the fact-checkers even batting their lashes over the text, but that Mr. Tepfer seem not ashamed to have provided them an un-researched, un-informed obviously shoddy piece of journalism to disseminate around the world.