The Genesis of the WFAA Story

The main thrust of the KWTX story was to link the criminal with our community.

One day, about five weeks after the man turned himself in, several people in our community all received calls from relatives who were ex-members claiming outrage about the crime. The word was out among the ex-members. The very next day, KWTX TV in Waco aired a story about the crime. (One of their main anchors was well-acquainted with some of our ex-members.) In spite of the fact that the arrest happened five weeks before and there had been no new developments in the case, KWTX treated the story as if it were breaking news, airing it in at least five time slots.

Of course the broadcast didn’t mention that we had reported the crime or that we had urged the man to turn himself in.

The main thrust of the KWTX story was to link the man with our community. They falsely represented him as a member of our church, citing the sheriff’s office as their source of information. But nothing in the public record about the arrest even mentioned our community, and the sheriff’s office assured us they did not provide that information to the station—the reporter already knew there was some connection with our community when they called the sheriff’s office. The story also said the man “lived at Homestead Heritage,” which was not true—he lived on private property. Of course the broadcast didn’t mention that we had reported the crime or that we had urged the man to turn himself in. (When the man later pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the Waco Tribune Herald ran a story that made plain our cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Click here to view that story.)

(Click here to see a transcript of one of the KWTX broadcasts.)

The worst part of the broadcast was the fact that KWTX revealed the identity of the minor victim of the crime. The victim’s neighbors saw the broadcast and called to inform us. They were shocked and outraged at this breach of journalistic ethics.

But the worst part of the broadcast was the fact that KWTX revealed the identity of the minor victim of the crime. The victim’s neighbors saw the broadcast and called to inform us. They were shocked and outraged at this breach of journalistic ethics. That same evening, one of our ministers contacted the station to express our disappointment at the injustice to the victim and their family and to inform them of the factual error about the man’s alleged membership in our church. Later newscasts removed the information that specifically identified the victim, but did not correct any other false information. The following morning the minister went to the station and talked with the station manager. After giving the manager the background to the story, the minister asked why we weren’t contacted about a story that featured us so prominently. The manager said he’d been told we had been contacted but that we had no comment. The minister told him that was not at all the truth. He apologized for revealing the victim’s identity and offered to put us on the air to comment about the story if we wished. The minister asked to get back with him about that possibility. We tried for days afterwards to take him up on the offer to comment, but our phone calls, voicemails and emails all went unanswered. (Our emails to the station manager contain more detailed information. Click here to view the emails.)

Shortly thereafter, we heard word that a KWTX reporter was working on a larger story attempting to link this man’s crime with a few other incidents of child abuse that we had reported in previous years in order to suggest that such behavior was rampant in our community—even alleging that it was our practice to hide such crimes from the law. The reporter and/or the ex-members involved even solicited the victim of the first case from eight years ago (who is still a minor) to give an interview about her experience. (This victim hasn’t lived in our community for many years, but she told some of her siblings, who are members of our church, about the interview.) We later heard that the makings of this new story had been handed off to a station in Dallas.

In the latter part of October, members of our congregation began receiving calls from various people who were once associated with us, including former members of our church and children who were raised in our community yet chose not to become members. All the calls followed the same pattern: these individuals had been contacted by a reporter named Brett Shipp, who asked them if they would be willing to give an interview with him to help him confirm allegations of abuse of children in our community. Though some of these individuals have disagreements with some of our religious beliefs and/or our chosen lifestyle, they nonetheless knew that his story line was faulty at the core, and thus they told him they would not participate in a story of that nature. They then called us to tell us of their concern. We received at least a dozen such calls.

On October 31, in violation of Facebook rules, Mr. Shipp began posting on a Facebook page that he’d created under a false name (“Bret Skip”), with a false date of birth (January 29, 1984). His first message stated his true identity and that he was “working on an exposé on HH” and “looking for those brave enough to go on camera” to talk about “the trauma and abuses associated with life within HH.” (See “Bret Skip’s” fraudulent Facebook page below.) In another Facebook communication to an individual who was raised in our community, Mr. Shipp explained that “the feeling is that the abuses and concerns have reached a point where many feel the story MUST get out and it’s not being reported in Waco. That’s where I come in. . . . It’s my hope that my reporting can bring some of the horrors to light. If you are able to help me with this issue I could use your testimony. If not, I appreciate your time.” It seems he only wanted testimony confirming his story line.

Another young man who grew up in our community but left when he came of age even sent Mr. Shipp a “friendly word of caution” that though the young man had heard rumors of this sort in the past (from the same types of sources Mr. Shipp was using), in every case he had thoroughly checked them out and they proved to be false. He ended by saying, “Feel free to contact me with any questions.” Mr. Shipp simply thanked him and said “Homestead leaders/Elders [would] be given an opportunity to respond.” According to this young man, Mr. Shipp has still made no effort whatsoever to hear his side of the story. Many others not a part of us told us of similar experiences, and that Mr. Shipp was not interested in hearing any testimony that would contradict his predetermined story line. Some of these also said that they found Mr. Shipp’s presumptive questioning about their personal lives intrusive and offensive.

On November 7, still having heard nothing ourselves from Mr. Shipp, we sent him the following email:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:16 AM
To: Brett Shipp ****@wfaa.com
Dear Mr. Shipp,

We’ve recently heard from numerous family and friends who were once part of our community that you are contacting them to compile a news story about us. They have expressed how disturbed they were because the story apparently involves the testimony of others who were once associated with us to one degree or another and who now claim to be exposing abuse (whether physical, psychological, sexual or otherwise) that they or others allegedly received while within our community. We’re told their false accusations even include the allegation that we cover up sexual abuse of children.

We have always been open to discuss these matters on a personal level with anyone having a legitimate interest. Public discussion, though, is different, as we have learned through past experience. So, after careful deliberation as to what course we should take in regard to these slanderous claims, knowing all too well the damage that such public defamation inevitably brings to the innocent parents and children in our community, we felt that, in regard to the forum of public media, it would be best to offer this letter.

It is grievous to us whenever the innocent suffer by slanderous association with the guilty, as Jesus Himself did when He was criticized for associating with sinners, and later died a criminal’s death.

We believe it is the very purpose of the church to try to reach out to sinners with broken lives in order to bring them the hope of the gospel. At the same time, though, that we are bringing these broken lives into our community in an attempt to help them, we also feel the duty to maintain a refuge of purity and sanctity for our children to be raised in. Given the realities of human nature, it is admittedly sometimes difficult to do both, and we are very aware that this calling to reach out to dysfunctional individuals and families makes us vulnerable to just the type of accusations we now face. It is grievous to us whenever the innocent suffer by slanderous association with the guilty, as Jesus Himself did when He was criticized for associating with sinners, and later died a criminal’s death. But the opposition didn’t deter Him from His mission, and neither do we intend to compromise our efforts to help the needy just to avoid the ugly situations that sometimes accompany that mission.

In the past, we’ve encountered in a handful of cases the heinous crime of child molestation, including the case of one family you undoubtedly know about whose problems were without precedent or parallel in the almost forty-year history of our community. In each case it was our church ministry who exposed the crime and brought it to the attention of law enforcement, fully cooperating with their investigations. Thus, the sheriff’s department, the district attorney’s office and CPS officials know the details of the situations involved. Therefore, we see no need for rehashing these cases in the media. Unfortunately, we’ve already had one instance in which the media unethically exposed the identity of the victim of the crime, not just the perpetrator, an offense that greatly displeased the authorities investigating the case. So we feel these matters should be left in the hands of the proper authorities to deal with as they see fit.

Furthermore, within our church community, beyond just abiding by the law, we further teach and require that our members hold to an even higher standard of morality. So we as a church cannot remain passive even when facing destructive behavior that is not criminal. Though we believe that a legitimate church should itself wield no coercive authority whatsoever, we nonetheless have felt the need to ask people to leave our community when we encounter even certain noncriminal issues of ethics and morality that are not in keeping with Biblical injunctions, especially when their behavior is repeated and not repented of. We don’t know who all is participating in your investigation, but this scenario would undoubtedly apply to most if not all of those who now accuse us of wrongdoing. When anyone has freely made a deep commitment to a way of life and then turns their back on such a commitment (or has even simply grown up enjoying the benefits of a community such as ours and chooses to leave), they are confronted with a choice: either assume responsibility for any consequences that result from their decisions and actions, or blame someone else. Unfortunately, blame shifting often leads to bitterness. To the fox who has failed to reach them, the grapes must be denounced as sour. Some who have followed this latter path have even affected others outside our community (fortunately only a few) and turned friends into adversaries. Though our firm stance against ethically and socially dysfunctional behavior and our refusal to let it remain unchecked within our community have been greatly appreciated by those who remain part of us (and even by many who have left, as well as family and friends never a part of our community), there are certainly some who have indeed chosen to deny responsibility for their own behavior and thus prefer to blame us instead.

Even in regard to those who might consider us their enemies, though in most cases we have substantial reason to question their character (and in some cases, even hard evidence of their dishonesty), we don’t feel that the media is the appropriate forum to discuss their failings.

But even in regard to those who might consider us their enemies, though in most cases we have substantial reason to question their character (and in some cases, even hard evidence of their dishonesty), we don’t feel that the media is the appropriate forum to discuss their failings. Again, the church’s mission is not to drag people’s problems into the public eye, or to keep record of wrongs, but to provide an alternative way of life within which people can actually overcome and live free from such problems. Furthermore, those we’ve had to ask to leave our community can and have maintained ongoing relationships with their families and their ministers. The exceptions to this have only arisen when the person leaving the community has shown utter disregard and contempt for the chosen values and way of life of their family that remains in the community. But many who have left us have demonstrated an honest respect for our differences, and some of these have even joined us again after a season, and now attest to their thankfulness for our willingness to be honest and uncompromising in our refusal to allow their negative behavior to corrupt our community. These positive outcomes give occasion for us to still hold out hope, even for many of those who currently oppose us, that we can in the future be reconciled, or at least have a mutually respectful relationship restored between us. We’re concerned that a public airing of their accusations will only widen the gap between us and further entrench them in the course of division and polarization they now follow.

We’re concerned that a public airing of their accusations will only widen the gap between us and further entrench them in the course of division and polarization they now follow.

In light of all the above—the fact that the authorities are fully informed and have already resolved the criminal situations, the fact that innocent families would be stigmatized simply by association with all these inflammatory accusations, the potential “sour grapes” phenomenon inherent in ex-members, and the hindrance that publicity would likely pose to future reconciliation with our accusers—we feel that these issues are not appropriate for the public media. We hope that we might be known not according to the behavior or stories of those who have abandoned our way of life (Gandhi once referred to accusations from such disgruntled people as the “drain inspector’s report”), but rather by the fruit and behavior of those of us who are actually living and enjoying the blessed life we’ve found in Christian community.

Thank you for your serious consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage
(***) ***-****

Mr. Shipp soon called Mr. Lancaster and left a voicemail, followed by an email simply asking for an on-camera interview with a church representative, with no mention whatsoever of the questions raised in Mr. Lancaster’s email:

Brett Shipp <****@wfaa.com> Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>

Dan,

Thanks for information [sic].

We would like to request an interview with Blair Adams or any Church spokesperson with respect to long-time and ongoing allegations of physical, mental and emotional abuse of children at Homestead Heritage.

Please respond as soon as possible.

Brett Shipp
News 8 Investigates
WFAA-TV
606 Young Street
Dallas, TX. 75202

That phone call (at our initiative) was the very first time Brett Shipp had communicated with anyone in our community.

When Mr. Lancaster called him later that day, he asked Mr. Shipp if he had considered the issues raised in our email. He said yes, but would not offer any answer to our concerns. He just kept asking if we would go on camera. He made explicitly clear that his story was to link “four pedophiles connected with [our] church” with “long-time and ongoing allegations of physical, mental and emotional abuse of children at Homestead Heritage.” That phone call (at our initiative) was the very first time he had communicated with anyone in our community. Yet even though everyone in our community and multitudes of others who know us well (including other ex-members) would doubtless have assured him that such “allegations” are patently false and that it was our ministry that exposed the rare cases of abuse (four in thirty-eight years, two of which were never even members of our church), nonetheless, when Mr. Lancaster again asked if he was willing to give the issues we raised in our email any further consideration at all, he said, “No.” He then informed Mr. Lancaster, “That is my story,” and “that’s not going to change.” Furthermore, he went on to insist that he was not open to any option other than following through with the story without discussion—again, still without even suggesting any solution to the ethical dilemmas we raised.

That is my story and that’s not going to change.
– Brett Shipp

Finally, when Mr. Lancaster asked if he would be willing to discuss the questions with his manager present, Mr. Shipp paused and then said flatly, “No.” He repeated that our only options were to go on camera or he would simply take our email as our statement. When Mr. Lancaster asked if we could take some time to consider those terms, he said yes, but immediately went on to say that he didn’t have a lot of time to spare, so he wanted an answer within the next couple of days. (In spite of the fact that he’d already been working on the story for weeks without ever contacting us and now we had contacted him, he nonetheless wanted us to now hurry.)

Granting Mr. Shipp the benefit of the doubt that he might have somehow misunderstood Mr. Lancaster’s request for a meeting with management to be for a different purpose than the questions and concerns he had been referencing for the entire phone call, Mr. Lancaster emailed him back the next day:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM
To: “Brett Shipp” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Shipp,

Thank you for responding to my initial email.

In regard to your request for a televised interview with us, I would like to reiterate what I tried to communicate to you in my first email and again in our phone call yesterday, for I believe there may have been some miscommunication. We have often participated in television interviews with the news media in the past, and have nothing in principle against doing so, but again, as I explained more thoroughly in the first email, we feel this situation calls for more careful consideration on both our parts, due to the nature of the allegations involved and the potential for harm on many fronts. As I mentioned on the phone, we are familiar with the accusations that certain people once associated with us have now been aiming toward us for years.

When I asked if you had considered the issues raised in my email, you said yes, but would not offer any answer to our concerns.

When I asked if you had considered the issues raised in my email, you said yes, but would not offer any answer to our concerns. Furthermore, you kept insisting that you were unwilling to give the issues I raised in my email any further consideration at all, and that you were not open to any option other than following through with the story without discussion—again, still without even offering any solution to the ethical dilemmas we raised.

When I asked if you would be willing to discuss the questions with your manager present, you said no.

Finally, when I asked if you would be willing to discuss the questions with your manager present, you said no. In hindsight, given your response about not needing to itemize a list of questions for us, I think you must have thought that I was wanting to discuss your interview questions. That was not my intent. I was asking you to discuss the questions I had raised in my email. I was requesting to meet off-camera with you and WFAA management to discuss the appropriate steps to take next, given the concerns raised in my first email.

We feel this to be a valid request, for, unfortunately, we’ve had recent experience in which there was miscommunication (at best) between a reporter and station management about a TV story involving us that contained inaccuracies. (This was the same broadcast mentioned in my previous email in which the station also unethically exposed the identity of the minor victim involved.) When we called the station manager and asked why we had not been contacted about a story that prominently featured us, he replied that he was told that we had been called about the story but declined to comment. But, in fact, no one contacted us at all, and we only found out about the story after it aired. The station manager then offered (after the fact) to let us comment on the air. But shortly thereafter, when we tried to contact the station again to accept his offer, our phone calls, voice messages and emails went unanswered. You may already know about all this, since we understand this is the station that then handed what they apparently saw as the makings of a larger story off to you.

We aren’t trying to hold you or your station to the questionable practices of other news media figures, but in light of all this, we simply want to make sure that everyone involved has been given the opportunity to consider our concerns so that responsible, informed decisions can be made by all parties. So, in case I was misunderstood before, I’m asking again, would you and your station management be willing to meet off-camera with us to discuss the concerns mentioned in our original email? The question of an on-camera interview with us could then be revisited in light of our discussion.

Thank you again,

Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage
(***) ***-****

Two days later, with no explanation whatsoever, Mr. Shipp completely reversed his position:

Brett Shipp <****@wfaa.com> Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>
Cc: “Valentine, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>, “Smith, Mark” <****@wfaa.com>, “Watler, Paul” <****@jw.com>, “Shipp, Brett” <****@wfaa.com>

Dan,

My manager Michael Valentine says he would be willing to meet with you on an expedited basis.

Would Monday 9am work?

You would need to be here around 8:45 am to get credentialed and signed in.

Brett Shipp

Since we were concerned that the meeting itself would turn into the interview that we were not yet certain we should give, we arranged for our meeting to be off the record. We also hoped that would allow for serious discussion and consideration about the detriments of such a story.

An excellent guard dog, though well trained in his function of protecting the farm from predators, can nonetheless wreak havoc if he’s turned loose inside the hen house.

Unfortunately, our concerns about Mr. Shipp’s methods and investment in his story line were only heightened by meeting him in person. Some of us had never encountered someone in a professional capacity that was as offensive and rude in their manner. This did not in itself put us off, though it is certainly contrary to our chosen way of relating to others whether inside or outside our own community. But Mr. Shipp’s manner in this case presented more than merely an unpleasant personality. His prosecutorial stance toward our community manifested his prejudgment of us as guilty as charged, an assessment he apparently reached before ever communicating with anyone in our community. It manifested his investment on one side of a story flawed at its foundation. Though we knew he was highly awarded, and we didn’t doubt that his aggressive, assertive, confrontational methods might be effective when it comes to sniffing out corruption in corporations and such, we were quite concerned that he was out of his element when dealing with a simple, peace-loving, non-violent, family-oriented church community. Looking only for “horrors” and “abuses,” he seemed unwilling to even concede the possibility that he was entirely mistaken in his misinformed judgment of us. An excellent guard dog, though well trained in his function of protecting the farm from predators, can nonetheless wreak havoc if he’s turned loose inside the hen house.

Mr. Shipp precipitated a run-in with us as we were leaving the WFAA conference room that further underscored our concerns about his lack of objectivity and his personal investment on one side of this story. Howard Wheeler was attempting to explain to the manager that though we could possibly agree that he personally had no agenda against us, nonetheless, the people in Waco who instigated the story have had a very definite agenda against us. They have vowed to destroy our reputation. Mr. Shipp broke into the conversation, getting right into Mr. Wheeler’s face, rather loudly and repeatedly insisting that Mr. Wheeler had made a false “assumption” about the origins of this story and Mr. Shipp’s sources and knew nothing of what he was speaking. Mr. Wheeler calmly told him that he knew the connection Mr. Shipp had with Channel 10 in Waco (KWTX) and Channel 10’s connection to the core group of detractors who have vowed to destroy the reputation of our community. Because Mr. Shipp again, with even greater vehemence, denied that Mr. Wheeler had any knowledge of the origins of the story, we guess that Mr. Shipp had forgotten that he himself acknowledged his connection to Channel 10 and their sources in a Facebook message to one of our ex-members, who graciously forwarded it to us.

Furthermore, subsequent to our off-the-record meeting with WFAA in Dallas, we were told Mr. Shipp sent around an email (again, only selectively to those ex-members antagonistic towards us) claiming that we left the station knowing our world was “under siege,” and that our attempts to portray all dissenting voices as liars might work with our “sheep,” but would not hold up in the “court of public opinion.” Therefore, he was encouraging his select group of detractors that it was the time to speak out.

I am now a staunch atheist who can refute every one of your god claims. I can see the falacies [sic] of your arguments. Luckily I am no longer afraid. I not afraid [sic] of going to hell.
– T. M. (ex-member)

The lack of integrity in the three individuals who had by that time openly proclaimed online their cooperation with Mr. Shipp certainly called into question whether Mr. Shipp had vetted his sources. All of them were known even among the other ex-members as having no credibility and much personal malice. At least one had been arrested multiple times, and another had made abundantly clear to a family member still in our community his blatantly anti-religious motive for participating in Mr. Shipp’s story line. In a Facebook message to Mr. “Skip,” he said he hoped Shipp’s efforts will bring the “charade of a wholesome Christian community crashing down.” (He also later submitted a comment about our online response in which he boasted, “I am now a staunch atheist who can refute every one of your god claims. I can see the falacies [sic] of your arguments. Luckily I am no longer afraid. I not afraid [sic] of going to hell.” Click here to view his entire comment.)

You use any means necessary these days to gather the story.
– Brett Shipp

Mr. Shipp’s own description of his means and methods only furthered our concern. In an online video, he says, “You use any means necessary these days to gather the story.” He proceeds to tell about a time when a man refused to talk on camera, so Mr. Shipp pulled out his cell phone camera and his hand-held recorder, and photographed the man anyway, without his consent. “He had no idea what I was doing!” Mr. Shipp says. (Click here to view the video.)
This kind of disingenuousness, as well as Mr. Shipp’s entire approach illustrated in the paragraphs above, is incompatible with our way of life. The families in our community would not want to subject themselves and their children to this kind of thing, and we felt it would be irresponsible of us to ask them to do so. We further believe that the public media is generally an inappropriate forum for discussing personal matters within families in the first place, and thus such an interview would constitute a violation of the fundamental right to privacy long enjoyed in America and so vital for maintaining the healthy fabric of family and community life. Law enforcement agencies are available to deal with those who abuse that right in order to hide criminal behavior, and we have fully informed the appropriate agencies and cooperated with their investigations in the few unfortunate instances in which their services were needed.

Unfortunately, we’re not unfamiliar with the dangers of malice that’s fueled by inflammatory accusations, and we’ve more than once found ourselves the target of prejudice.

Given all the above concerns, and given the “sour grapes” agenda we knew was motivating Mr. Shipp’s selected informants (a phenomenon widely recognized by sociologists as being potentially inherent in any ex-member¹), and given the fact that his stated story line presented a false and misleading characterization of our community to begin with, and given that he had already demonstrated blatant and reckless disregard for the truth and a presumptive commitment to this biased story line in the face of so much opposing testimony and evidence, we simply had no grounds to believe that the truth would have been furthered by an interview with Mr. Shipp. Thus, we sent a lengthy email to the WFAA news manager, Michael Valentine, who had asked us at our meeting at WFAA to be in contact only with him from that point on. In the email, we detailed much of the history presented above and declined any interview of any kind with Brett Shipp. We also respectfully declined him access to any of our events or facilities. In the interest of space, we present here only the last paragraph (click here to view the entire email):

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:04 PM
To: “Valentine, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>

At various times in the past, from just the type of people now accusing us, we’ve had our church pulpit desecrated, our property defaced with swastikas, we’ve received grotesquely unprintable hate mail and violent death threats, and on one occasion years ago we’ve even had our children shot at.

We have attempted now to share our concerns regarding this “exposé” through several means—extensive emails, a phone call, and our two-hour off-the-record meeting providing factual background and answering your questions. We hope they have been heard and understood, and though we wouldn’t presume to tell you how to do your job, we nonetheless respectfully submit our opinion that there is no newsworthy story here in the first place, and that attempting to create one will profit no one but has potential to harm many. (Unfortunately, we’re not unfamiliar with the dangers of malice that’s fueled by inflammatory accusations, and we’ve more than once found ourselves the target of prejudice. At various times in the past, from just the type of people now accusing us, we’ve had our church pulpit desecrated, our property defaced with swastikas, we’ve received grotesquely unprintable hate mail and violent death threats, and on one occasion years ago we’ve even had our children shot at.) Thus we request that the story simply be dropped. We would appreciate being informed of your decision.

Thank you,
Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage
P.S. You’ve probably already heard about this, but if you visit www.homesteadheritage.com/petition you can view a petition that some of our former members asked that we post there so they could affix their signatures and comments to it in regard to this “exposé.” It has 78 confirmed signatures on it at the time of this letter.

Mr. Valentine’s response to our 2,500-word email came back in 19 minutes:

Valentine, Michael <****@wfaa.com> Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:23 PM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>

Mr. Lancaster,

Thank you for your response. I think we can agree to disagree with the term “expose”. In my 7 years here we have done numerous investigations, not “expose’s”. [sic]

Beyond that, I understand and appreciate your concerns. I would also submit any apprehensions you have with specific individuals should not cloud your decision to speak with us. As you could tell from our meeting and I hope from this email I make the final decisions on stories and copy edit each of them. If there are concerns regarding reporter agendas, I can assure you of two things: 1. That is simply not true. 2. I have the final say on all investigative pieces run by WFAA.

Regardless of what happened in the past and your concerns about Mr. Shipp I continue to encourage you to sit down with us for an interview. I can and will be present if it makes you more comfortable.

If I deem the information we have gathered newsworthy we will air stories. That is the general criteria I use for each story we pursue. Since we are still gathering facts I can’t give you an answer. Your on camera interview would have helped us in this process.

I will again contact you as we get closer to any possible air date.

Sincerely,
Michael Valentine

If there are concerns regarding reporter agendas, I can assure you … That is simply not true.
– Michael Valentine

While we appreciated Mr. Valentine’s frankness and his promise to communicate with us about the story, there were nonetheless elements of his response that did little to lessen our concerns. To begin with, his absolute assurance that there was no “reporter agenda” seemed quite hasty, given that there was no possible way he would have been able to read our email, carefully look into the behavior of Mr. Shipp that we detailed there, and write his response in 19 minutes. (Most of what we wrote to him had not been discussed with anyone at WFAA before.) He also seemed to overlook the fact that it was not Mr. Shipp’s use of the term “exposé” that we disagreed with—we were pointing out that he had openly admitted that his story was in fact an exposé, and he was presenting it as such to the ex-members he was soliciting.

It was also quite clear that the only criterion used to make decisions about the appropriateness of a story was Mr. Valentine’s personal opinion. Given that all of our concerns detailed above had been dismissed so quickly, we remained uneasy about whether the matter would receive an appropriate amount of care and consideration.

¹ See, for example, the works of Gordon Melton, Stuart Wright, David Bromley and Anson Shupe.

Alex Hannaford was trying to get his version of the story out before WFAA.

We heard nothing more from WFAA for almost three months. But shortly after the last email from Mr. Valentine, we began hearing about the Texas Observer reporter, Alex Hannaford, who had been contacted by the same ex-members who were behind the WFAA story. He told several people that he was trying to get his version of the story out before WFAA. (Click here to read the genesis of that story.) The Observer released his story online on February 10, 2012. That story only confirmed to us more clearly the nature of the attack against us. (Click here to view our response to the Observer story.)

On February 23, a WFAA helicopter showed up unannounced at our community farm.

Thirteen days later, on February 23, a WFAA helicopter showed up unannounced at our community farm. For about 45 minutes, it hovered very low over our craft village, our church and several private homes. (Click here for video footage.) The same day, we also discovered from an online article that Mr. Valentine had been removed from his position as news editor at WFAA and replaced by a woman named Carolyn Mungo. Ms. Mungo’s online biography says that “much of her long form work over the years involved stories about children and families at risk.” She won an award for a story that “reported on the horrors discovered by [CPS] workers” in Phoenix, Arizona. This certainly indicated that she would likely be interested in Mr. Shipp’s “exposé on HH” in which he planned to “bring the horrors to light” of “physical, mental and emotional abuse of children at Homestead Heritage.” Having heard nothing from anyone at WFAA since Mr. Valentine’s email reply in early December, we wrote him to inquire about the situation:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM
To: “Valentine, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Valentine,

Several events have transpired recently that have given occasion to communicate with you again regarding the story on our community Brett Shipp was working on last November. We recently found out about your change of position at WFAA, and the appointment of Carolyn Mungo as news editor. How does this change the situation? Have you informed Ms. Mungo of the events surrounding Brett Shipp’s story?

We did not appreciate this unannounced intrusion, as it was very loud and disrupted our public craft classes, frightened some of our children and caused complaints from some of our elderly neighbors.

We had a WFAA helicopter hovering very low over our church, our craft village and numerous private residences for about 45 minutes on Thursday. We did not appreciate this unannounced intrusion, as it was very loud and disrupted our public craft classes, frightened some of our children and caused complaints from some of our elderly neighbors. Unfortunately, this disrespectful intrusion is in keeping with our concerns about the way Mr. Shipp has handled this story thus far—concerns that we’ve detailed to you already, and which have precipitated our decision not to participate in his story.

Also, as you’re probably aware, some of the same group of ex-members involved with Mr. Shipp’s story also contacted a reporter with the Texas Observer a couple months ago, and they recently released a story on us very similar to the story line Mr. Shipp was pursuing. The story was a travesty, not only in our opinion, but also in the eyes of all those who know us well, including numerous ex-members who do not share the agenda of this embittered group attacking us. It contained copious errors and inaccuracies, and a lot of unsubstantiated, but nonetheless inflammatory, hearsay from anonymous sources and such. We have posted a video and a written response in answer to that sensationalistic story on our website at: www.homesteadheritage.com/slander

We are providing WFAA with the link because it contains much information relevant to Mr. Shipp’s stated story line, and we hope it will help demonstrate why we requested that the “story,” at least as it has been presented, simply be dropped.
Who should I be in contact with now regarding this story? If it’s Ms. Mungo, please send me her email address at WFAA, so I can contact her directly, too.

Thank you for you [sic] consideration,

Dan Lancaster
Mr. Valentine’s reply was typically prompt and brief:

Valentine, Michael <****@wfaa.com> Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>

Mr. Lancaster you can contact her if you like. She will be in charge when the story is complete.

Thank you

Mv

Mr. Lancaster tried again to get answers to our questions, but his subsequent emails went unanswered:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM
To: “Valentine, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>

Thank you. Have you given her the background we’ve given you on this story?

Also, I have no contact information for Ms. Mungo. Could you please give me her email address?

Thanks again,

Dan Lancaster

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM
To: Michael Valentine <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Valentine,

I’ve been unable to locate an email address for Ms. Mungo, and so I’m asking again if you can provide me with her contact info at WFAA.

It also would be helpful to know if you’ve given Ms. Mungo the background we provided you on Brett Shipp’s story about us.

If you could assist me with this, I would be grateful.

Thank you.

Dan Lancaster

We finally decided to write the WFAA station manager for help. We attached all the email communication with Mr. Valentine to provide context (the attached material is removed below for the sake of space):

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:22 PM
To: “Michael Devlin” <****@wfaa.com>

Dear Mr. Devlin,
I’m writing you in regard to a news story that your station had been considering about our community at Homestead Heritage. We initially contacted Brett Shipp about it back in November because we had heard from numerous sources that he was planning an “exposé” (to use his term) on our community. Many of those Mr. Shipp contacted were very concerned that his stated storyline would be a gross misrepresentation of our community. Our own contact with Mr. Shipp thus far and the way this story has been approached have only furthered our concerns (you can get a sense of this by reading our email exchanges below). After a phone call and several email exchanges with Mr. Shipp, and then a meeting with Mr. Shipp, Mr. Valentine and Mr. Smith at WFAA to share our concerns, Mr. Valentine instructed us to be in contact with him from that point on concerning the possible story.

Many of those Mr. Shipp contacted were very concerned that his stated storyline would be a gross misrepresentation of our community.

We recently became aware, however, that Mr. Valentine is no longer the news editor at WFAA, so I sent him the emails that I’ve attached below. Mr. Valentine has still not answered my repeated requests for Ms. Mungo’s contact information, so I’m wondering how to get in touch with her (I’ve been unable to locate any contact info for her on your website).

In addition to our original concerns, the Texas Observer news magazine was also contacted by some of the same embittered former members of our community that have been in contact with Mr. Shipp, and the Observer recently published a story along these same lines that is a travesty in the eyes of all who know us well (save, of course, those few embittered former members). We’ve now posted an extensive online response to the Observer story that is very relevant to Mr. Shipp’s stated story line. I emailed the link to Mr. Valentine (www.homesteadheritage.com/slander), but he has not answered my inquiries as to whether the information we’ve given him has been passed on to Ms. Mungo.

Given this breakdown in communication, I’m now writing you for your advice and direction as to how to proceed with our efforts to communicate our concerns with the appropriate people at WFAA.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage

Mr. Devlin responded:

Devlin, Michael <****@wfaa.com> Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>
Cc: “Mungo, Carolyn” <****@wfaa.com>, “Shipp, Brett” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Lancaster:

Regarding the “breakdown” in communication you cite: WFAA has been in the Dallas Forth Worth community for more than 60 years and is listed in the phone book. If you cannot find a [sic] employee, feel free to call WFAA’s main number (214 977 9631) and one of the two receptionists in the lobby would be more than happy to switch you to Ms. Mungo’s phone number where you could either talk with her in person or leave a message which she will return.

For future reference; Carolyn Mungo’s e mail is : ****@wfaa.com Her direct line is *** *** ****

Brett Shipp’s email is: ****@wfaa.com His direct number is *** *** ****

My e mail is ****@wfaa.com My direct number is *** *** ****

I appreciate the background you have provided. From my perspective the most important point is that Michael Valentine asked you to meet with him to detail your concerns and provided you with an offer to conduct an on camera interview in the event WFAA produces a news story about Homestead Heritage. The offer to conduct an interview remains intact.

Sincerely,
Mike Devlin

Mr. Lancaster replied, and proceeded to contact Ms. Mungo:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM
To: “Devlin, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Devlin,

Thank you for responding to my email. Please understand that my reference to a breakdown in communication was not only because I couldn’t locate Ms. Mungo’s contact info online. It was primarily due to the fact that Mr. Valentine had specifically instructed me to be directly in contact with him regarding Mr. Shipp’s proposed story, and yet after three emails over six days, I still had not received an answer regarding two very simple questions I asked Mr. Valentine, one of which was regarding background information I had given him directly. This was a surprise to me because Mr. Valentine had generally been very punctual in communicating with me up till that point.

I appreciate your prompt response and all the contact info you provided. Though I see you carbon copied this string to Ms. Mungo, I will contact her directly as well.

Thanks again for your help.
Dan Lancaster

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM
To: “Carolyn Mungo”<****@wfaa.com>

Dear Ms. Mungo,

I’m writing concerning a story Brett Shipp had been considering about our community at Homestead Heritage. I saw that Mr. Devlin had carbon copied my recent communication with him to you, so I assume you’re already at least somewhat acquainted with this proposed story. As reflected below, we had been in communication with Mr. Valentine about all this, but we recently learned that you have taken his place at WFAA, so I’m now contacting you. Mr. Valentine has not answered my inquiries about how much background on this story he has conveyed to you. I know the email string below has already been copied to you by Mr. Devlin but if you have not already read through the emails contained here, I would encourage you to do so in the event that you decide to pursue this story.

I think some of the background material below will make clear why we have been uncomfortable thus far with giving an interview regarding this story, but please feel free to ask if you have any questions about all this.

I also want to emphasize that we have addressed much material relevant to Mr. Shipp’s stated story line on a website we created to answer a similar story already published by the Texas Observer. (The Observer was contacted by some of the same group of antagonistic people that have been in contact with Mr. Shipp.) I would ask that you please give careful attention to that pertinent material before proceeding with any story. The website is: www.homesteadheritage.com/slander

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you on these matters.

Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage

Ms. Mungo promptly replied:

Mungo, Carolyn <****@wfaa.com> Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>

Mr. Lancaster,

Thank you for writing. I will be looking into the background on this story, and will respond to you within a week.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Mungo
News Director
WFAA-TV
Dallas

But Ms. Mungo’s promised response never came. So after a month, when rumors began to reach us that WFAA was about to air the story, we sent the following:

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM
To: “Mungo, Carolyn” <****@wfaa.com>

Ms. Mungo,

Having not heard from you since your email response a month ago, I just wanted to check and see if you’ve had a chance to review the information I sent you, and if there’s anything else I can provide to help you understand the situation surrounding Mr. Shipp’s proposed “exposé” about our community.

Also, Mr. Valentine had said in his communication with me about the story in question that it was yet undecided whether he considered the story newsworthy or not, and that he would again contact me if they got closer to a possible air date. I appreciated that, because in the event WFAA decides to run a story on our community of the nature that Mr. Shipp was planning, we would like the opportunity to consider giving a statement for use in the story.

Could you please keep us informed of the status of the story?

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Dan Lancaster

Mungo, Carolyn <****@wfaa.com> Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>
Cc: “Shipp, Brett” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Lancaster,

I have talked at length with the investigative team. We are planning to air the story in the next few weeks. If you are interested in making yourself available for an interview, that would be great. You can contact Brett directly. He has been copied on this email.

Thanks again,

Carolyn Mungo
News Director
WFAA-TV
Dallas
(***) ***-****

This was the first definite word we had heard that WFAA was running the story. A few days later, we heard from Brett Shipp again:

Shipp, Brett <****@wfaa.com> Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM
To: “Dan Lancaster” <****@gmail.com>

Dan,

As we have discussed, part of our presentation on allegations of abuse within the Homestead Community. [sic] Chief among that abuse would be multiple stories of physical abuse, parents beating their children.

Former members are providing me with information that they were encouraged to “break their child’s will” by whatever means necessary, which frequently would result in bruises and blood.

If you have a response to this allegation I would like to include it in my story. And as always, we prefer your response be on-camera.

Many thanks.

Brett Shipp
News 8 Investigates
WFAA-TV
606 Young Street
Dallas, TX. 75202

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM
To: “Shipp, Brett” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Shipp,

In the event that WFAA decides to run your story, we would like to give a statement for use in the story. What is the planned time frame for the story?

Thank you,
Dan Lancaster

Shipp, Brett <****@wfaa.com> Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>
Cc: “Mungo, Carolyn” <****@wfaa.com>

Dan,

We plan on running the story in the coming days.

Perhaps as early as next week.

Brett Shipp
News 8 Investigates
WFAA-TV
606 Young Street
Dallas, TX. 75202

We prepared a written statement and sent it to Shipp, Mungo and Devlin.

Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com> Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:41 PM
To: “Shipp, Brett” <****@wfaa.com>
Cc: “Carolyn Mungo”<****@wfaa.com>, “Devlin, Michael” <****@wfaa.com>

Mr. Shipp,

We ask that you include the attached statement in your story concerning our community. We ask that you would use it over and above any other material that you might use to represent our position in these matters.

Please confirm your receipt of this email and the attached statement.

Thank you,

Dan Lancaster
For Homestead Heritage

(Click here to view the statement.)

Four days later, Mr. Shipp responded:

Shipp, Brett <****@wfaa.com> Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM
To: Dan Lancaster <****@gmail.com>
Ok, I got it.

Thanks Dan.

Brett

WFAA ran the story three days later. They included just one and a half sentences from our statement.