« STATE SENATOR STEVE MURPHY: ANOTHER BRIDGE COLLAPSE “IS A LIKELIHOOD” | Home | ST. CLOUD TIMES REPORTER CONFIRMS DCCC SENT HIM INFORMATION ON BACHMANN VOTE #2 »
ST. CLOUD TIMES REPORTER CONFIRMS DCCC SENT HIM INFORMATION ON BACHMANN VOTE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 6, 2007
If you read this post about the "Dump" blogs' silly attack on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman John Kline, you would know that I am not a fan of this sloppy and confusing article from the St. Cloud Times.
Rarely am I so openly critical on my blog about a specific newspaper article, but this article deserves it.
Now, St. Cloud Times reporter Larry Schumacher has confirmed that a "flak" from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent him information on the vote:
"And yes, since I got the Politico link in my inbox from a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee flak Saturday morning, I think it's safe to say Democrats will be bringing this up next year." Source: St. Cloud Times
The article in question was written by Pamela Brogan and failed to mention that every member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota voted for a motion to adjourn. The article singled out Bachmann and Kline.
I can't confirm if Brogan communicated with representatives of the DCCC before her article was published on Saturday. But it is reasonable to assume that Schumacher was not the only reporter at the St. Cloud Times to receive information from the DCCC.
It is also important to note that both "Dump" blogs are listed on the DCCC's blogroll. Did the DCCC send information to the "Dump" blogs?
After reading the St. Cloud Times article from Saturday, I'm beginning to wonder if the DCCC will list the St. Cloud Times next to the "Dump" blogs on their blogroll.
Topics: Uncategorized |
August 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Michael,
As my blog post indicates, I received the press release on Saturday morning, after Gannett News Service reporter Pam Brogan wrote and the St. Cloud Times published the coverage of the House bridge vote.
As you are well aware, both Democratic and Republican party operatives regularly send information to reporters to get their attention on matters, many of which involve attacks on opposing party members.
I think it is unfair and very reckless to insinuate that Pam Brogan was fed information about Bachmann’s vote when the only evidence you cite points against your own speculation.
But as you know, the relevant question is not whether Brogan personally observed Bachmann’s and Kline’s vote to adjorn before the bridge funding bill came up, but whether they did in fact vote that way and why.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Brogan’s reporting, but I am still waiting to hear a rationale for Bachmann’s vote.
Your use of my post to taint Brogan’s reporting and the Times’ coverage is not well-founded, in my opinion.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
If you believe the garbage the Democrats are peddling, they’ve got a bridge to sell you.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
The story is accurate, maybe. But it is far from truthful. In all reality, it’s non-news. If the reporter was interested in telling a complete story, he/she would have told the complete story… and that story is that every member of the Minnesota delegation voted for adjournment before the bill was complete, and then the bill was completed the next day.
It was a stupid article to even write.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Larry: In the three-year history of Minnesota Democrats Exposed I have rarely been critical of specific reporters and the MSM.
But the article on Saturday from Pamela Borgman deserves such criticism.
I am well aware of the behind the scenes maneuvering by Republicans and Democrats to attack their political opponents. In this instance, I think Democrats may have found a willing accomplice in the St. Cloud Times.
St. Cloud is not in Congressman John Kline’s district, nor am I aware of any Gannett owned newspaper in Congressman Kline’s district. Therefore I am surprised the Times (and a reporter for Gannett) included Kline and Bachmann’s vote and failed to report that every member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota voted for motion to adjourn.
Why just Kline and Bachmann’s vote? Well based on your post, a “flak” for the DCCC emailed you the story from Politico. I believe it is reasonable to assume the DCCC sent emails to other reporters.
If the DCCC was the source for the information, then we shouldn’t be surprised they focused on Kline and Bachmann. They would not have included the important information that every member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota, including Democrats, voted for a motion to adjourn.
The Times never mentioned this important information, making me believe they may have used a packaged attack from Democratic operatives.
It is fair to scrutinize the votes of our elected officials and also how these votes are reported by newspapers.
In this instance, I feel the St. Cloud Times may have allowed the political agenda of a campaign committee or Democratic operatives cloud their reporting.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Ummm the article was accurate.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sure, and it’s also accurate to say that the entire Democrat contingent voted to adjourn before final passage of the 35-W bridge repair funding package.
Democrats were driven to go home before taking care of the state’s needs. Disgusting.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I think this Pam Brogan lady should bone up on civics before she tries to write about politics.
And Schumacher should be ashamed of himself for defending her or the paper in this case.
As you know Mr. Larry, credibility means everything in your business, and this sort of attack takes a bite of out any credibility your operation has.
So which is it Larry, is Pam stupid or is she partisan?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Steph:
I respect the fact that Larry Schumacher has posted on my blog on this issue. Let’s be more respectful of the people we may disagree with and let’s not refer to people as stupid.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Yeah, I’m sorry.
This just gets frustrating. They missed the mark so bad on this and attacked Bachmann on an issue where she was clearly in the right.
Sorry Larry, but please be a little more careful.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
It is well known that Eva ‘I need attention’ Young and Ken ‘where is my camera’ Avidor call around to reporters acting as if they are an extension of the MSM to sell erroneous stories on Michele Bachmann, I am sure they were doing this same thing here, it looks as if there is too much coordination.
I think the bigger thing here as Steph mentioned is the partisan bent that is coming out of this particular story. It reeks of partisanship and clearly not that of objective reporting!
August 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Larry, I’m sure there were a number of DFLers taking “bad” party line votes this past legislative session, where are the stories on those?
I think it is in the journalistic interest to at least explain the procedures surrounding the vote, rather than mention in in a hit-and-run style like you did. By doing so, you really played right into the Democrats’ hands. They depend on being able to dupe people, and you fell for it. It’s really unfortunate and probably why people are reluctant to trust the media.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
So a journalist published a half-truth: Bachmann and Kline did vote for adjournment. No contextual reference. No deep research. Just a cut and paste off of a DHCC hit piece. Said journalist had no contact with Bachmann or Kline to substantiate what the motive was for each vote. No sense of context for what the rest of the Minnesota delegation was doing or the ultimate outcome and the finer nuances of prying $250,000,000 out of the feds hands within 48 hours of a catastrophic tragedy.
It almost makes you wonder if the DHCC and DFL pay journalists for this type of blatant partisanship.
The DFL and it’s weird uncle the DHCC are telling a lie cloaked in a half-truth. The insinuation is that Michele and John do not support funding for the bridge catastrophe. Fact is their votes everything to do with buying time to address other aspects of the legislation.
Would be good if these journalistic nincompoops pick up the phoen and call each for elaboration. Now would be good.
Bad play by DHCC to try and create a smear out of a procedural vote. Worse call for the journalist not substantiating the votes with the honorable congress people they smeared. Bad job by the St. Cloud Times in throwing up a softball for the left that is based on incomplete information.
Our entire congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle deserves a huge pat on the back for getting this done so quickly.
The St. Cloud Times should be embarrassed. I expect more from them than what has become predictable and common partisan bias at the Strib and PioPress.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Two things you can always count on: Liberals to lie; Journalists to be serve as their vehicle.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Michael,
I’ve posted a blog entry on the timeline of what happened on Friday, both from a congressional and media standpoint.
http://65.36.138.212/publicus/blog/read.asp?BlogID=6&ID=7124
Sorry for not linking to you in the post. I know it’s bad blogger manners. I tried to add it but I started having issues with my blogger interface after I put up this post. I’ll add it when I can.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Larry
Seeing Pawlenty and Rybak work so well together makes me proud. (Here’s one Republican who can say good things about a Democrat!!)
But, one thing we do not neeed right now in Minneapolis: careless journalism.
You owe Bachmann and Kline a public apology. Anything less is a disservice to them, to your fellow journalists, and to yourself. Just because you do not agree with Bachmann and Kline does not give you the right to play fast and loose with the truth.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Mr. Schumacher:
After searching through the archives, I noticed that you refused to report on former Senator Dean Johnson’s “sanding off the edges” dust-up involving the State Supreme Court.
True?
And if so, don’t you think you’ve lost all credibility as a journalist?
Jon
August 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Regardless of how this got out, it did.
One simple way to resolve this is for Rep. Bachmann and Kline simply to explain why they voted to adjourn prior to hearing HR 3311.
Both of them voted for HR 3311, but the votes prior need to be explain…or this story might have legs beyond a few lines in the St. Cloud Time.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[...] « ST. CLOUD TIMES REPORTER CONFIRMS DCCC SENT HIM INFORMATION ON BACHMANN VOTE | Home [...]
August 6th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I got the politico story forwarded to me by a volunteer DFL activist in the 6th District. He had gotten it from a non-DCCC paid operative.
Also, the issue isn’t who the source is, the issue is whether the story is accurate.
It’s worth pointing out that on Dump Bachmann, we promoted Michael’s criticism to main posts. I hope that Congresswoman Bachmann will agree to a podcast interview with Larry Schumacher or Pam Brogan - this will be a good way of getting the questions settled.
This is absolutely a story that’s worth covering.
DJ Tice also defended using sources such as the DCCC in cases like this:
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=572
Many Bachmann defenders – notably talk radio host Jason Lewis on Friday, Monday and Tuesday – have decried the fact that ardent and more or less full-time Bachmann critics tipped Eric to the statement Bachmann made in a recorded interview with the St. Cloud Times.
They also complain that the statement was two weeks old when Eric wrote about it and insist that he should be satisfied with Bachmann’s vague clarification of what she meant, which does little to explain what she said.
Above all, though, Lewis & Co. suggest that there is something discreditable about a journalist pursuing a story that is being peddled by people with an obvious political axe to grind. (Here’s a link to audio of Lewis’ recent programs. The Bachmann/Black portions start in the file labeled 2/23 -5 p.)
One wonders how such people think watchdog journalism happens. Seldom do politicians phone the newspaper to call our attention to their own misdeeds or missteps. Only rarely do the political or ideological allies of a politician, administration or legislative majority shine a light on instances of corruption or incompetence among their friends and standard bearers.
Sometimes, it’s true, journalists launch investigations entirely on their own. But most of the time, watchdog journalism starts with a tip from someone who has a grievance (political or personal) with the target of the inquiry. Incompetence and mischief in high places would almost NEVER come to light if reporters and editors were too pure to check out such leads to see if they are true and newsworthy.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Eva: Do you stand by the accuracy of your post?
August 7th, 2007 at 7:20 am
“Watchdog Journalism”???
To that, I say, “Have your pets spayed or neutered.”
August 7th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Eva exhibits a surprisingly high level of nincompoopism in her post. Bottomline it appears that Eva despises Congresswoman Bachmann. Ditto for Ken Avidor. There’s a big difference between that type of blatant hatred and watchdog journalism.
Take Keith Ellison for instance (please!). I don’t hate him at all. I actually rather liked him when he was on the Civil Law & Elections Committee with Tom. Seemed like a decent guy.
Then I became aware of allegations about his philandering and generally corrupt behavior (citations from Coty of Minneapolis, unpaid parking tickets, unpaid taxes, association with Louis Farrakan, etc). I pursued the allegations and vetted facts about his history.
Ultimately, I pleaded with him to apologize to the mistress he had “thrown under the bus”. The object of the exercise was to clean up the wreckage of Ellison’s past. I may have lost whatever respect I had for him through the process but I certainly don’t hate him.
Wouldn’t you agree Eva? Ken? Do you truly hate Michele? Seems that way to me.
The Dump drivel is all hate, all the time. It’s a waste of time.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Bachmann and Kline voting to adjourn is onerously linked by leftist DCCC operatives to the notion that these honorable elected folks did so as an expression of opposition to supporting the funding of the 35-W bridge funding.
That’s blatant nincompoopism.
To claim that that is newsworthy is wrongheaded, biased and unethical.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] Due to a confusing article from the St. Cloud Times and behind-the-scences maneuvering by Democratic operatives, two "Dump" blogs are continue to make the claim that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman John Kline chose partisan politics over the interest of Minnesota by voting for a procedural motion to adjourn before final passage of the 35-W bridge repair funding package. [...]