Shot In The Dark: Polinaut's Question: Late To The Station

April 10, 2006

Polinaut's Question: Late To The Station

Bob Collins of Minnesota Public Radio does "Polinaut", covering regional/national politics.

Almost a week ago, Collins asked bloggers to disclose their connections to political campaigns, given that we just got some of the same immunity from speech rationing laws that the media enjoy:

Now that the FEC has decided not to treat bloggers as potential independent expenditures and allow them the freedom to say what they want and do what they want, perhaps it's safe to answer these questions...-1- Are you paid in any way by a campaign or candidate?

-2- Do you consult with campaign officials or party officials as to how the content on your site can be most beneficial to a particular candidate or party?

-3- Are you as an individual paid by a campaign or affiliated with an organization or company that has as a client, a particular campaign or political party?

There's nothing wrong, mind you, with either 1 or 2 or 3. I just think it would be interesting to find out what bloggers are independent, and which ones actually are working with or for a campaign.

Now, First Ringer, Triple A, Bogus Doug and Foot already responded - like, a week ago, and pretty definitively in most cases.

But I've never been afraid to be a day late and a dollar short.

Bob,

Good questions. My answers:
Am I paid by any campaign? - Heh. I wish. No, I'm not. Never have been. I do, however, have a category on my blog, "Disclosure", in which I list everything I receive as a result of this blog. It's been consideration for speeches at district fundraisers, mostly - I've gotten three dinners and probably four adult beverages, so far.

Do I consult with campaign officials about how my site's content can benefit them? - Nope. No. I have advised campaigns and party officials on how best to leverage blogs. Every opinion I write about a candidates is purely my own.

Am I as an individual paid by a campaign or affiliated with an organization or company that has as a client, a particular campaign or political party? - No. Doy. Of course not.

Now Bob - why do you assume that for *any* of us it was *ever* "unsafe" to answer those questions?

There seems to be an unstated assumption on the part of much of the exempt media that we bloggers are on the take - that there's no WAY we can all be organic. Nick Coleman spent much of 2004 insinuating as much, and Bob's question (inadvertently or not) does the same.

Now, Bob Collins, a question for you. Inasmuch as:

During the early stages of the '02 Senate campaign, MPR was caught selling/swapping mailing lists to the Wellstone campaign,
MPR gets a small but significant portion of its budget from federal and state taxpayers - and is thus committed to supporting a big-spending, big-government agenda very much at odds with the GOP and quite congruent with the DFL
A wide variety of MPR employees have gone from MPR to jobs associated either indirectly (Katherine Lanpher) or directly (Karen Louise Booth) with the Democratic party

...when will MPR show the same level of commitment to openness about its political biases and backing that bloggers routinely show?

Whose financial roots and influences, indeed, need more scrutiny - we bloggers, or MPR itself?

(By the way - someone tell Bob Garfield that he can cut the crap and change his show's title from "On The Media" to "Conservatives Are Ickypoopy").

By the way, thanks for the plug.

Posted by Mitch at April 10, 2006 06:50 AM | TrackBack

Comments

You fail to point out that the link about MPR selling its donors list was from a story that appeared on the MPR news Web site. Can't get much more transparent than that. As for biases, I can't speak for MPR as an organization but, you're right, people who work here vote and have political leanings. But here's the surprise: if I fire a gun down the newsroom, I have about the same chance of hitting a Republican as I do a Democrat. I don't expect folks to believe it, but so be it.

What bothers me about the three questions' reaction is that a lot of folks use the same word "assumption." In other words, rather than treating the questions as a literal exercise, it is assumed to mean something else.

That's readers' bias

Re: people leaving: Well, that's two and I would assume that when people leave journalism and go into something else, they'd go into something they'd like. Boothe left the DFL by the way and went to work for the State Department or something in some Eastern bloc country. That's run by the Republicans, last time I checked.

Re: scrutiny of MPR equal to that of bloggers: MPR has to fill out a 990 every year. It has the list of the top paid execs and the non-execs. It's available for free at GuideStar. In addition, the financial reports are available. Show me one blogger or one mainstream reporter who has ever subjected itself to that sort of scrutiny. One.

RE: MPR supports the DFL because it accepts taxpayer money: You're asking me to defend a premise that's simply incorrect. That's like saying farmers get a portion of their income from the government, so they're in line with the DFL. The Internet was spawned by taxpayer money so you're a DFLer.

People ARE against wasteful governemtn spending, it's just that they define that as stuff spent on somebody else.

As for my own political leanings, as a rule, I don't vote precisely for the reason you provided. It makes it too easy for folks to ignore an issue and float a red herring. If candidates don't speak to the issues i'm interested in, I don't vote for them. Lately, nobody is speaking to my issues. But that's just me. I don't advocate not voting. But if you think I'm trying to get someone elected, forget it.

Personally, I think the automatic classification of people into one camp or the other is a bad thing. It's done to close a mind, not open one. Look, nobody *has* to accept a differing opinion. But we don't even get to the listenign part anymore because we're too quick to shout "leper!".

I do love your site, by the way. Some things I agree with. Some things I don't. Sometimes my mind is changed. Sometimes it's not.

Posted by: Bob Collins at April 10, 2006 08:56 AM

Bush is a motherfucker, it's an idiot, millions of people around the world think like that.
I support anti-BUSH sites, please take a loot to this sites i've found:

Click here to see a good anti-BUSH site with designs and ideas on many products like T-Shirts Mugs Caps Bags and others

Click here to see a good anti-BUSH BLOG

Click here to see a good CHE GUEVARA forum

Posted by: Edward Antony at April 10, 2006 09:07 AM

"You fail to point out that the link about MPR selling its donors list was from a story that appeared on the MPR news Web site. Can't get much more transparent than that."

True - except for the "why".

"As for biases, I can't speak for MPR as an organization but, you're right, people who work here vote and have political leanings. But here's the surprise: if I fire a gun down the newsroom, I have about the same chance of hitting a Republican as I do a Democrat. I don't expect folks to believe it, but so be it."

Actually, I've known a few people from MPR. Some are former colleagues who work for MPR, others I've met since. And I'll grant you this much, Bob - MPR's news department takes a better whack at genuine balance than many other promintent local newsrooms. The executive suite and certain other personalities, I think, are another story - but I can not expect you to comment on that.

As to your claim that you'd hit an equal number of Republicans if you fired a shot down the hall - we'll come back to that.

"What bothers me about the three questions' reaction is that a lot of folks use the same word "assumption." In other words, rather than treating the questions as a literal exercise, it is assumed to mean something else. That's readers' bias"

A fair point. To be fair, I think the "now that the FEC...perhaps it's safe" wording created a subtle implication; "now that it's safe to come out, c'mon guys...spill it!". I think it's perfectly plausible that you intended no such thing, and yet that a number of people (myself included) took that as part of your tone. As someone who both writes *and* studies human/computer interaction for a living, it's interesting (in an academic sense) how difficult it is to write online about emotionally-loaded topics.

"Re: people leaving: Well, that's two and I would assume that when people leave journalism and go into something else, they'd go into something they'd like. Boothe left the DFL by the way and went to work for the State Department or something in some Eastern bloc country. That's run by the Republicans, last time I checked."

I heard that! Karen and I worked together, 20 years ago. But the State Department's senior management is to "Republican" as Bill Kling is to "NASCAR".

"Re: scrutiny of MPR equal to that of bloggers: MPR has to fill out a 990 every year. It has the list of the top paid execs and the non-execs. It's available for free at GuideStar. In addition, the financial reports are available. Show me one blogger or one mainstream reporter who has ever subjected itself to that sort of scrutiny. One."

Well, of course I can't; neither the Strib nor I are non-profit corporations! The Strib is a for-profit, and I'm a private citizen with a big mouth!

"RE: MPR supports the DFL because it accepts taxpayer money: You're asking me to defend a premise that's simply incorrect. That's like saying farmers get a portion of their income from the government, so they're in line with the DFL. The Internet was spawned by taxpayer money so you're a DFLer."

I'm walking, rhetorically, a thin line here, Bob. Bear with me.

People and organizations tend to act in what they perceive as their best interests, as well as following the path of least resistance; to return to your example, while farmers are stereotypically Republican, they keep sending free-spending Democrats to Congress. My native North Dakota has voted GOP in 25 of the past 20 Presidential elections; they also send Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy to Washington - because they keep the money coming.

The point is not that MPR is in the bag for the DFL - I've noted my opinion on the news department's general sense of balance - merely that it is in MPR's fiscal interest to have a DFL government, which is much more overtly free about spending on things like the NEA, the NEH and, of course, N/MPR.

"As for my own political leanings, as a rule, I don't vote precisely for the reason you provided. It makes it too easy for folks to ignore an issue and float a red herring...But if you think I'm trying to get someone elected, forget it."

Noted. But let's call it a pink herring; to say there's no politically-based slant in news coverage in general, or in National/Minnesota Public Radio's non-news coverage is, I think, stretchy (and, I'll allow, not as simple an issue as conservative orthodoxy would have it, either).

"Personally, I think the automatic classification of people into one camp or the other is a bad thing. It's done to close a mind, not open one...Look, nobody *has* to accept a differing opinion. But we don't even get to the listenign part anymore because we're too quick to shout "leper!".

I agree. Strongly, in fact.

"I do love your site, by the way. Some things I agree with. Some things I don't. Sometimes my mind is changed. Sometimes it's not."

Thanks. That's what I shoot for. And kudos to you and MPR for writing and hosting Polinaut. I'm new to reading it, but it's an excellent venture. One I'll be mixing it up with, I'm sure, in the future.

Posted by: mitch at April 10, 2006 09:39 AM

EdTony,

Quit fooling - you're really JB Doubtless, yanking my chain, aren't you?

C'mon, spill it!

Posted by: mitch at April 10, 2006 09:40 AM

You gotta admire the clarity and conciseness of Edward's message. Take note PB.

Posted by: the elder at April 10, 2006 09:55 AM

Thank God Edward is too stupid to actually link sites. Someone might be tempted to actually "Click here to see a good CHE GUEVARA forum".

Posted by: Kermit at April 10, 2006 10:15 AM

For me, the biggest creepy-crawly living under the MPR rock is Keillor:

From:
The Old Scout: Spring's in the air, so issues can wait
by Garrison Keillor
04/08/06
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/358496.html

excerpt:

[Columnists should not write about politics. Take it from me, it's a bad idea. You pick up your bright sword to harass the heathen Republican and your prose style goes limp, your verbs droop, and words such as "comprehensive" and "funding" creep in and you become thin-lipped and hissy, like Miss Whipple in study hall telling the boys in the back of the room to shape up or be sorry. Well, they aren't going to shape up. What will shape them up is the day of reckoning and it's not here yet.]

Posted by: RBMN at April 10, 2006 10:32 AM

Boothe left the DFL by the way and went to work for the State Department or something in some Eastern bloc country. That's run by the Republicans, last time I checked.
-------------
Check again. The notion that somehow the election of a Republican administration automatically replaces the careerists at State (or the Pentagon for that matter) is completely naive. The State Department, in particular, has been a liberal Democratic stronghold for the past 50 years and has been in direct confrontation over policy with Republican leadership for about as long. Just because the Executive changes doesn't mean the bureacracy changes, which of course is why after 5 years, the current administration is still struggling for control over American foreign policy.

As for the political collusion between MPR and the DFL being "incorrect," who's kidding whom? We are talking here about a government-subsidized "non-profit" enterprise operating not only in Minnesota, but California as well, with commentary and reporting strictly adhering to the political tenets of the Democratic Party. If you dispute this assertion, then please identify the Conservative programs and commentators at MPR. (And no, the Tappet brothers don't count).

Posted by: Eracus at April 10, 2006 10:36 AM

I don't think identifying a conservative program is the proper response to an allegation that we're not in the pocket of the DFL. I can't identify a conservative program (I'm speaking of the news department), but I can't identify a liberal one either. What? Midday? I've worked with Eichten for 14 years and in 30 years in this business, I've NEVER run into someone whose politics is so hard to ascertain.

Miller? I don't know anything about her politics and she doens't do many political shows (locally) these days since that appears to be Midday's turf.

Wurzer? You tell me. Crann? No clue.

Look, I get the whole big bad MPR thing. I hear the same politicians giving the same speeches you do, and yet in the quiet of a studio away from the bright lights, and off the air, I hear the same politicians singing praise. So what are you going to do?

My primary goal in anything is to just get people talking. Civilly. And respectfully. I think that's a good thing and I'd welcome any opportunity to do that. If you don't agree with me, it's not because you're a jerk, or a Republican, or a Democrat or a child abuser. It means you have a different opinion.

I think it's actually possible to return to a time when that's OK.

By the way, big points for allowing comments. I notice that Andy at KvM lifted your intitial post, then did the usual bashing...asked me a question (as you did) and then didn't provide any opportunity for an answer because he turned the comments off. What's that all about?

I don't think an opposing point of view is anything to be afraid of. So, thanks for the opportunity to express it.

Posted by: Bob Collins at April 10, 2006 01:05 PM

Nice dodge.

You can't identify a conservative program or a conservative commentator because there aren't any. The entire programming schedule is just one liberal cliche after another, much of it from Berkeley, sometimes complete with the "expert analysis" of, say, Daniel Schoor.

MPR is not a public broadcast service; it is the propaganda organ of an entrenched liberal elite determined to govern in perpetuity. MPR receives public funding but serves only one side of the political spectrum with its unbridled contempt for the other. Without the public subsidy and the constant appeals for ever more gullible liberal donors, MPR would collapse in every market outside the Ivory Towers of metropolitan Utopia. Hence the taxpayer subsidy.

Can't ascertain the politics, Mr. Collins? Tell it to the Marines. No one is that naive, but it's not surprising someone with 14 years at MPR would submit he still can't tell the forest from the trees.

Posted by: Eracus at April 10, 2006 03:13 PM

Your "jello on wheels" is worth remembering. Pithy poetry.

Posted by: Jo Bond at April 10, 2006 11:18 PM

http://utenti.lycos.it/vasisualliy/20.html http://utenti.lycos.it/vasisualliy/20.html [url=http://utenti.lycos.it/vasisualliy/20.html]http://utenti.lycos.it/vasisualliy/20.html[/url] [url]http://utenti.lycos.it/vasisualliy/20.html[/url] 57DB6D79E16DCAE493A53712A8085FB05A804D03

Posted by: Dan at May 2, 2006 09:54 PM

http://toddan.interfree.it/19.html http://toddan.interfree.it/19.html [url=http://toddan.interfree.it/19.html]http://toddan.interfree.it/19.html[/url] [url]http://toddan.interfree.it/19.html[/url] F4814D03658D47F54990F7FBFD319CC1BABACCD8

Posted by: Cristian at May 6, 2006 12:32 AM

Posted by: Kaden at May 17, 2006 09:17 PM

He said that the direction of oil prices and the developing story regarding Iran will also play a role in trade, although the earnings news is likely to dominate. If the Iran issue fades, mens-watches bebi com stocks can continue to move up in the week ahead, said Ghriskey sancarlostowers http://www.sancarlostowers.com/links/page1.htm

Posted by: sancarlostowers at August 1, 2006 10:23 AM

teens sex teen galleries

Posted by: Aowufxrbck at October 10, 2006 01:24 AM

naked indians indian hills community college

Posted by: Tdyqjcod at October 10, 2006 12:46 PM

casino itself I believe time to be its own dimension to be controlled http://www.casinophiles.com casino Martys mom shouted a reply [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] casino[/URL] moaning Typical sounds of sex Marty watched for a moment then shook .

Posted by: casino at October 23, 2006 08:27 PM

big latin dick latin teen xxx

Posted by: Uaaeus at October 30, 2006 07:29 AM