Your read of the following exchange between Executive Editor Ben Holden and Republican Party Chair Josh McKoon may vary depending upon your perspective. The following four documents, all of which follow below, are relevant:
1. A proposed Op-Ed piece written by McKoon.
2. A Letter reply from Holden to McKoon, with attachments, taking issue with factual assertions in the McKoon piece.
3. The final re-submitted piece, submitted by McKoon for publication on Sunday Nov. 23 in the Voices section of the Ledger-Enquirer.
1) The Ledger-Enquirer. The Friday editorial admonished voters to watch Republicans for signs of being uncooperative with Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. I don't remember any such editorial asking Tom Daschle or Nancy Pelosi to play nice with President Bush when he was elected, twice. It seems counterintuitive to suggest that the party to watch now is the GOP when Democrats control the Legislative and Executive Branches of government. How about cautioning overreach by those in control? Remember 1993 when after running on economic policy President Clinton swung into action by having legislation introduced to...allow gays in the military?!
The Sunday editorial seems to suggest that the concerns about the fairness of coverage in the newspaper are totally without merit. (Deleted following discussions between McKoon and Holden) I have to take strong exception to that notion. The Ledger-Enquirer is the newspaper of record in our community.
I know when I research events and am looking for factual information, I go to archives of the Ledger. I also look to be able to cite the Ledger in debates again for a factual source on which we all can agree. Unfortunately, the Ledger and other mainstream media organs are losing this reputation of being an objective source of information.
This goes beyond an endorsement of Obama for President, although I urge a comparison of that editorial with the endorsement of Bush in 2004 and it seems hard to understand how both opinions can be held by the same editorial board.
The news items carried by the Ledger, principally coming from the Associated Press, have been very much stacked in favor of the Obama campaign.
You want some examples I am sure, so let me provide you some. The Ledger ran stories about Palin's unreadiness as VP, the amount spent on her wardrobe for the campaign and the so-called "Troopergate" episode.
The Ledger did not run any stories questioning Biden's readiness (i.e. his > suggestion in the wake of 9/11 that we should write Iran a check for $200 million), his connections with the credit card issuer MBNA (an MBNA executive bought Biden's house, etc.) or how many $1,000+ suits Biden had bought for him by the DNC or Obama-Biden.
The Ledger failed to run a single story on how the Obama campaign disabled basic credit card security software that allowed donations from multiple names using the same credit card number (Osama bin Laden and Adolph Hitler being a couple of names that got through), that did not check for overseas donations > or in any way come into compliance with FEC rules. Where were the Ledger stories following Stanley Kurtz lead on the connections between Obama and William Ayers or Obama and Tony Rezko?
Of course we did see stories about McCain and the Keating 5 and the many "lobbyists" working in McCain's campaign. I could go on and on but the fact is the Ledger's coverage mirrored that of many other media outlets in its tilt toward Obama.
There has always been a liberal bias in the press, but at the end of the day the press has followed stories where they lead no matter who was involved (witness Gary Hart and Donna Rice, Bill Clinton and the many scandals of his administration).
The 2008 campaign will be remembered as the time when liberal media bias transformed into liberal media advocacy, summed up recently by Chris Mathews who said his job as a journalist is to make Barack Obama successful.
This is why readership, advertising and subscriptions will continue to decline as long as the Ledger is seen less and less an honest broker of the news with a left leaning editorial bent and instead as a Pravda-like propaganda arm of the Obama campaign from the news and editorial pages. I hope you might take some of this criticism into account as you seek to cover the Obama inauguration and his administration.
Josh McKoon Chairman, Muscogee County Republican Party
2) Hey Ben, Here are the results of my research regarding the points you raised (from Josh McKoon’s letter). I physically searched the papers of the last nine weeks or so. I didn’t have access to August’s papers. (even numbered issues only)
2. Placement and length of Palin "Troopergate" episode
The “Troopergate” scandal for Palin broke in the second week of July and was being covered extensively by media in her home state of Alaska prior to her nomination on Aug. 29.
According to Holly’s record, Troopergate never made it to the front page. In the stories of Sept. 3 and 4, surrounding Palin’s appearance at the GOP national convention, she attacked the media for its investigations into her personal life, McCain’s campaign strategist Steve Schmidt criticized a “faux media scandal” surrounding her, but he never mentioned anything specific. It was most likely either the Ted Stevens money or her pregnant, unmarried child he was referring to, as they were the hot convention-week topics.
Inside coverage of Troopergate did include:
Sept. 27: “Palin aides defy subpoenas in Troopergate” A10, 5 in.
Oct. 12 “Report stings Palin over Troopergate” A12, 21 in.
Nov. 4 (Election Day) “Report clears Palin in Troopergate probe” Page A6, 18 in.
Chuck was covering the travel issue. Other Palin and Palin-related coverage on inside pages includes:
Sept. 3: “Campaign funds hurt Palin image” A8, 18 in.
Sept. 7: “Palin’s persona covers her complexity” A17, about 40 in.
Sept. 8: “Biden eager for debate with Palin” A9, 6 in.
Sept. 9: “McCain, Palin criticize Obama on earmarks” A14, 18 in.
Sept. 15: “Young evangelicals split on Sarah Palin” A10, 24 in.
Sept. 16: “Palin spells out her role” A8, 18 in.
Sept. 23: “FBI searches apartment in Palin hacking case” A8, 12 in.
Sept. 25: “Palin look-a-like berated” A2 Really, 12 in.
Sept. 27: “Palin gives tainted donations to charity” A10, 12 in.
Sept. 27: “Veep choices add their voices” A10, 48 in.
Sept. 29: “Records show Palin accepted zoning aid, gifts while mayor” A8, 30 in.
Oct. 2: “Palin’s popularity tumbles among Alaskans” A10, 36 in.
Oct. 4: “70 million tune in to Veep debate” A10, 9 in.
Oct. 14: “Father of Bristol Palin’s baby speaks out” A5, 25 in.
Oct. 17: “Palin urges tapping into energy sources” A10, 20 in.
Oct. 28: “Candidates found in cabbage patch” A2 Really, included pictures of custom-made Cabbage Patch dolls modeled on both presidential and vp candidates to be auctioned for charity. 15 in.
Oct. 28: “McCain dismisses Palin clothes” A10, 20 in.
(I didn’t include all the A2 people briefs covering Tina Fey’s Palin impression and Palin and McCain’s separate appearances on SNL)
4. Biden's connections with the credit card issuer MBNA (an MBNA executive bought Biden's house, etc.).
I didn’t find anything on this, and very little on Biden at all. Something might have run shortly after he was named the veep choice, or something might have appeared on the business page, but if it did it was before September.
6. How the Obama campaign disabled basic credit card security software that allowed donations from multiple names using the same credit card number (Osama bin Laden and Adolph Hitler being a couple of names that got through), that did not check for overseas donations or in any way come into compliance with FEC rules.
Didn’t find this particular issue covered in any of our stories. We did have the story “RNC files complaint about Obama’s fundraising,” but that was about various fundraising records as possibly being from overseas, partly because when the information isn’t known on a contributor’s record, they mark it “IR” for “information requested.” Someone apparently thought it meant “Iran.” Ran on Oct. 7, Page A4 (obit page) and was between 10-15 inches.
8. Stories on Obama and Tony Rezko.
The only story I found mentioning Rezko ran Oct. 13 on A10 and is about 36 inches long. The headline is “Campaigns highlight foes’ past associations,” and the subhead is “Both candidates stretch facts in attempt to smear opponent. The AP story by Christopher Wills discusses Obama’s links to Ayers and Rezko and McCain’s links to Charles Keating, John Singlaub and Rick Davis. It detailed the connections, what the campaigns were saying, and what the actual facts were. It ended with a link to both candidate’s Web sites.
10. Stories on the "lobbyists" working in McCain's campaign.
I didn’t find anything on this either. If we ran it, it was buried in one of the “today on the campaign trail stories which comprise the bulk of our coverage.
I have to say, having done this review, I can say that our coverage of the campaign consisted of three main types of stories. “Today on the campaign trail,” as I said, then poll results stories, then “Checking the candidates’ facts” stories.
Most of our inside coverage was stories on both candidates and what they said that day, either proposing fixes for the economy, blaming each others’ parties for the state of the economy, or questioning the other’s veracity.
While I might agree that the content of some AP stories seemed a little quick to jump to Obama’s defense (a tendency we as editors tried to counter in our cutting as much as possible), I think our coverage was remarkably balanced. Even “fair and balanced,” if such a phrase can be used non-ironically any more.
Hope this helps,
Christopher Sheets
Newsroom Training Editor
Date: Nov. 18, 2008
To: Ben Holden
From: Chuck Crouch
Subject: Selected analysis of topics from coverage letter by Josh McKoon
Methodology: I took the odd-measured items from the Josh McKoon letter. I researched the story issues off-site and then came in and went through all papers from the final 2½ months of the presidential campaign. I specifically noted all inside wire stories in addition to the coverage that Holly Leach has listed in her fact-check, fairness scorecard. What follows is a listing of the selected topics I covered and a synopsis of our coverage regarding these items. This was a painstaking effort that involved turning every page in the paper for the period involved. This is necessary because our wire coverage has not been archived in SAVE database. As we go forward in SaxoTech, this kind of research should be more efficient and less time-consuming. 1. Placement and length of Palin wardrobe stories: We ran two stories regarding Sarah Palin’s wardobe.
Story I: On Thursday, Oct. 23 on page A10 we ran an 11-inch story in the left-hand well of the page. The headline on the story said: “$150,000 spent on Palin’s look” The subhead said: “Campaign says clothing will go to charity after vote.” This was the third and lowest-profile campaign story on the page. At the top of the page was a McCain campaign story. The second story at the top of the page talked about surprisingly long lines voters were finding in advance voting.
Story II: On Monday, Oct. 27 on page A10 we ran a 12-inch story under the headline: “McCain dismisses Palin clothes flap.” To my knowledge, these were the only two stories we ran on the topic.
3. Stories on Biden’s readiness (i.e. his suggestion in the wake of 9/11 that we should write Iran a check for $200 million): I found no stories on this in our paper. I did find stories on the Web referencing or repeating this 2001 anecdote. Most were on partisan Web pages.
5. The number of $1,000+ suits Biden had bought for him by the DNC or Obama-Biden: I found no stories in our coverage regarding this. The Web research I did held a consensus that McCain, Obama and Biden buy their own clothes. One Web story talked about likes and dislikes, but not about any of the three receiving party funding for their clothing.
7. Stories following Stanley Kurtz’s lead on the connection between Obama and William Ayers: I’m sure we have run a number of stories about this since the issue was brought out during the Democratic primary season. For purposes of this report and the coverage period leading up to the election, I found two stories in our coverage.
Story I: On Saturday, Oct. 11 we ran a 24-inch story on page A15 under the headline: “McCain ad raises Obama’s links to former radical (William Ayers)”
Story II: On Friday, Oct. 17 we ran a 30-inch story under the headline: “Chicago knows Ayers as a scholar.” Those were the only two stories I found during this period.
9. Number and placement of stories about McCain and the Keating 5: Again, since the original event in 1991, I’m sure we have run stories about McCain’s testimony and his part in the Keating 5 case. But for the purposes of this research I found no stories specifically about this issue.
Other Ledger-Enquirer points of entry on theses issues:
I would note that I covered only news columns in this research. Throughout this campaign, and including the most recent period, our newspaper has carried a number of columns by authors on both sides of the political spectrum. Some have been nice, others less so.
I know Josh McKoon knows the difference between opinion and news. But just as a numbers thing, we have run many columns and/or editorials that probably have touched on these topics. My sense is that no matter how politically savvy a person is, during political campaigns many can’t and/or don’t see the difference. And so coverage to some means everything that was in the Ledger-Enquirer.
My professional perspective on this campaign coverage: B
ecause I have watched and worked with Larry Foley for years as he carefully selects and diligently balances news coverage, I feel that our coverage throughout Campaign 2008 has been remarkably fair and even. I know that’s my goal every day I come to work and on every story I put in the newspaper.
We have reported news when there was news. We have tried to identify opinion or analyses when we run them. Most of all we have tried to give readers information from many sources so they could make a well-informed decision in 2008. We don’t live in a vacuum, and we must invite feedback and even criticism. I think we must recognize that other people are entitled to their perceptions. We can learn from them. But I also think that others must also look at the process and understand how diligently we seek and strive to balance coverage and be fair to everyone.
Chuck Crouch Senior Copy Editor
3) Final Version of McKoon Op-Ed From: Joshua McKoon Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 Dear Editor: I read with great interest the editorial in the Friday edition of the Ledger-Enquirer. The Friday editorial admonished voters to watch Republicans for signs of being uncooperative with Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. I don't remember any such editorial asking Tom Daschle or Nancy Pelosi to play nice with President Bush when he was elected, twice. It seems counterintuitive to suggest that the party to watch now is the GOP when Democrats control the Legislative and Executive Branches of government. How about cautioning overreach by those in control? Remember 1993 when after running on economic policy President Clinton swung into action by having legislation introduced to...allow gays in the military?! I wanted to address the issue of fairness in terms of the news coverage toward the two presidential tickets. The Ledger-Enquirer is the newspaper of record in our community. I know when I research events and am looking for factual information, I go to archives of the Ledger. I also look to cite the Ledger in debates again for a factual source on which we all can agree. Unfortunately, the Ledger and other mainstream media organs are losing this reputation of being an objective source of information.
The news items carried by the Ledger, principally coming from the Associated Press, have appeared to me to be stacked in favor of the Obama campaign. You want some examples I am sure, so let me provide you with a few.
The Ledger ran stories about Palin's alleged unreadiness as VP, the amount spent on her wardrobe for the campaign and the so-called "Troopergate" episode. The Ledger did not run any stories questioning Biden's readiness (i.e. his suggestion in the wake of 9/11 that we should write Iran a check for $200 million), his connections with the credit card issuer MBNA (an MBNA executive bought Biden's house, etc.) or how many $1,000+ suits Biden had bought for him by the DNC or Obama-Biden.
The Ledger failed to run a single story on how the Obama campaign disabled basic credit card security software that allowed donations from multiple names using the same credit card number (Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler being a couple of names that got through), that did not check for overseas donations or in any way come into compliance with FEC rules.
Where were the Ledger stories following Stanley Kurtz lead on the connections between Obama and William Ayers or Obama and Tony Rezko? Of course we did see stories about McCain and the Keating 5 and the many "lobbyists" working in McCain's campaign. I could go on but the fact is the Ledger's coverage mirrored that of many other media outlets relying on wire services in its tilt toward Obama.
There has always been a liberal bias in the press, but at the end of the day the press has followed stories where they led no matter who was involved (witness Gary Hart and Donna Rice, Bill Clinton and the many scandals of his administration).
The 2008 campaign will be remembered as the time when liberal media bias transformed into liberal media advocacy, summed up recently by Chris Mathews who said his job as a journalist is to make Barack Obama successful.
I hope you might take some of this criticism into account as you seek to cover the Obama inauguration and his administration. While I have this platform, I do want to make one other thing clear.
While I opposed the election of the Obama-Biden ticket with all the effort I could muster, we must all now respect the decision the American people have made.
In the wake of this election, evidently there are people making statements that Obama is the anti-Christ or Obama is a radical Muslim "Manchurian Candidate" of some kind. These statements are not only patently false and hateful but also do immeasurable damage to those of us who are trying to articulate a reasoned opposition to the policies we expect will be proposed in the next administration.
We need to stand together in condemning those irresponsible statements and focus on moving our country forward. As for me, Barack Obama is my President and I will support him when I can and respectfully disagree when I cannot. Thank you for the chance to say that. Regards, Josh McKoon, Chairman, Muscogee County Republican Party
No comments:
Post a Comment