Just a note – everyone who’s anyone is coming to the..

 THIRD ANNUAL MOB SUMMER BASH

at Keegans, tomorrow night!

Boilerplate:  The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers is a non-partisan group of bloggers who exist, mainly, to further blogging in Minnesota.  As such, we invite all bloggers, and for that matter all non-bloggers, to come on down!

Now, yesterday Jeff Kouba from TvM wrote in my comment section:

It being the MOB at all, there should be a rule that we can only play “Don’t Stop Believin’” on the jukebox…

Of course, Journey’s 1981 classic – which had a couple of years’ association with the TV show Scrubs – will now forever more be linked to The Sopranos, because of its prominence in the final epi.  So naturally, a good MOB party should play it prominently.

But there are other good Mob – if not MOB – related songs to choose from:

1. The Night Chicago Died, Paper Lace (naturally, the referenced “East Side of Chicago” exists on the same plane as, well, the Jukebox at Keegans). 
2. Meeting Across The River, Springsteen – maybe the best song ever about small-time hoods.
3. Dance With Me, the Iron City Houserockers – great song about a small-time hood and his girl out for a night on the town.
4. Princess of Little Italy, Little Steven and the Disciples of Soul – and I’d suggest it even if “Little Steven” Van Zandt didn’t also wind up playing Silvio Dante for the show’s whole run…
5. Big Man In Town, the Four Seasons – it just sounds right.

OK, what the heck, your turn…

Saturday at Keegan’s, naturally!  It’s the..

 THIRD ANNUAL MOB SUMMER BASH

at Keegans, Saturday night!

The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers is a non-partisan group of bloggers who exist, mainly, to further blogging in Minnesota.  As such, we invite all bloggers, and for that matter all non-bloggers, to come on down!

I’ll be coming down.  Hope you can too!

Ed’s out of town, so NARN II is going to be a “solo” show this weekend. 

And when I say “solo”, I mean “me, plus a few really great guests”. 

I’ll be talking with Joel Rosenberg and Andrew Rothman about the latest on the shooting in Coon Rapids last month, which I’ve covered in some depth but which keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, and now looks to be verging, to some observers, on an official coverup.

I’ll also be talking with The Transit Geek, Erik Hare, about the Met Council’s plot to gut Saint Paul, although he may have a different term for it. 

Plus the Volume I guys, John, Brian and Chad from 11-1, and Volume III, King and Michael, from 3-5!

And then, the highlight of the social season, the

THIRD ANNUAL MOB SUMMER BASH

at Keegans, Saturday night!

The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers is a non-partisan group of bloggers who exist, mainly, to further blogging in Minnesota.  As such, we invite all bloggers, and for that matter all non-bloggers, to come on down!

UPDATE:  Rosenberg.  Joel Rosenberg.  There is not Rossenberg slated to appear.  Oops.

…”What do you do to make yourself depressed at the state of humankind?”

Well, that’s fairly simple.  I ponder the fact that Joe Biden has a political career, or that the Doors are regarded as rock legends, or that…

…no, I’m sorry.  That’s untrue.  Nobody asks me what I do to make myself depressed.

They do ask me if I’m going to fisk the latest column explosively-oozing bit of deranged twaddle from Susan Lenfestey. 

It’s a distinction without a difference, of course. 

But I’m all about duty, when it calls.  If indeed Lenfestey needs fisking, I’ll do it.

Still, Jeff Kouba and Learned Foot gave me the best midsummer present of all; they did the job in great style, giving me a column’s respite from slogging through and sharing the woman’s continuing descent into surly, shrieking madness.

I thank you, gentlemen.  And I shall step up for the next one, refreshed and ready to do battle. 

Where “doing battle” equals “whacking at an advancing manure slick with a hockey stick”.

Mixing iced tea and “work”:

And for the record, they had the best tasting iced tea I have ever had, and not just because it hit 100 here in DC today.

Beyond that?  No similarity.  He’s actually doing something useful – in this case, Sunday’s interview with Said Jawad, Ambassador from Afghanistan:

In one sense, it breaks new ground because the Ambassador rarely gets an opportunity to speak in depth about the status of Afghanistan. Normally, all he gets are quick sound bites taken out of context, or a five-minute segment on a talking-head show in which he never gets the opportunity to speak about his country’s experience in any depth at all. In this format, we can allow Ambassador Jawad to speak at length — and if you listen to the show, you can see that the Ambassador has quite a story to tell.

The most groundbreaking aspect of the interview, I believe, is how the questions came to the Ambassador in the first place. Readers of this blog asked the questions in the comments section, and I selected the most germane and posed them to the Ambassador. His staff reviewed that thread and spoke about how impressed they were with the variety and depth of the questions. Afterwards, Ambassador Jawad said the one question I failed to ask that he wanted to answer was one about dirt-biking in Afghanistan’s mountains, which he thought would be a marvelous idea, so I know they paid close attention to your input.

You oughtta listen to his rather remarkable interview with the Ambassador. 

It’s been a week since I and my readers noted several instances of the the Minnesota Monitor’s Jeff Fecke publishing quotes of statements uttered during interviews he did not attend, and which would seem, in several cases, to have been taken from Associated Press wire copy.  These quotes were made without attribution.  When questioned, he changed his copy (but still failed to attribute the quotes), made one fairly incriminating statement…:

 Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of. 

…and then clammed up, refusing to answer any questions about the issue.

The Monitor’s “Code of Ethics” states that “citizen journalists” should:

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.

Fecke arguably misrepresented himself, by stating the quotations in such a way as to imply he had access to public figures like Senator Coleman, Governor Pawlenty, MNGOP chair Ron Carey and others.

   * Never plagiarize.

As noted in my series, a number statements appeared as direct quotes under Fecke’s byline that were practically identical to copy that appeared in the Associated Press.  King Banaian noted (with emphasis added):

While Mitch and Michael were discussing the issue of plagiarism at Minnesota Monitor, Michael called to ask whether the use of a quote from a published source met my definition of plagiarism. Pointing to the above definition, what I could say was that if a student here did what Mr. Fecke at MinMon did on a paper turned in to me, I would call it plagiarism. Use of the adverb “reportedly” would not suffice — I would have written in red in the margin, “reported where? Give source.”

Ironically, the “Code of Ethics” also calls upon the “Citizen Journalist” to…

  * Expose unethical practices among each other and wherever they are found to maintain professional standards.

  * Keep the same high standards to which they hold others.

The “Code” then goes on to…:

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong. :

…which has certainly occurred, here, although perhaps not in the way the Monitor intended…

…and then, to:

   * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

The Monitor‘s only response to this issue, off-line, has been an extended series of “no comment” non-responses. 

Which, when you consider that among their “code”‘s most-succinct points is that the “citizen journalist” is to…:

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

This, the Monitor has not made the most token effort to do. 

What is a defender of intellectual property and justice to do?

The bad news – it’s been probably over a year since Jeff Kouba took “Peace Like A River” off the air. 

The good news – he joined “Kennedy Vs. The Machine” and now “Truth Vs. The Machine”, whose stable includes the best center-right political writers in town.

The best news – we get our cake and can also eat it.  Jeff is reviving PLAR!

Git on over there!

From the website for “Almanac”, Twin Cities’ Public TV’s long-running aplogia for the region’s center-left status quo, their list of blogs they follow.

From the Left: Just about every left-leaning blog worth reading in the Twin Cities (and a few that aren’t). 

From the Right: Um, wouldja believe, Minnesota Democrats Exposed.  That’s it. 

Your tax dollars in action.

Why, it’s almost like they don’t know they’re in the midst of the nation’s most vibrant conservative blog community.

An oversight. I’m sure of it.

I read a lot of local leftybloggers.  With some, it’s a pleasure; there are a few good writers out there. 

With most, of course, it’s for yuks and giggles. 

Now, I have a theory about the perennial commenter and blogger who goes by the name “Phoenix Woman”.  “Her” blogging is such a concentrated melange of leftyblog/”activist”/identifeminist cliches, delivered with a caricaturish frothing perma-ire, that I can only figure that she’s an incredibly elaborate parody, done by a fiendishly clever, albeit low-shooting, anti-feminist conservative blogger.  I’m guessing Kevin Ecker, JB Doubtless, or maybe Dementee. 

Long ago, Molly Ivins pointed out that the Republicans were habitual practicers and cultivators of the psychological tic known as “projection”, wherein one blames other people for one’s own thoughts and deeds.

“Maaaaa!  They did it first!”

And if you can’t trust Molly Ivins to give you the straight scoop about conservatives, who can you trust?  She is – or was – the Joe Farah of the frothy left.  Again, evidence that “Phoenix Woman” is a parody.

Today I’d like to introduce you to Mitch Berg, local Republican radio host and owner of the “Shot In The Dark” blog.

It’s “conservative” host – I’m not an arm of the party.  And “you” needn’t introduce me, since more leftybloggers read me than read “Mercury Rising”.  

Mitchie-poo [Oh, I’ve never heard that one! – Ed.] wants to have it both ways: He wants to stamp his widdle feet and blame lefty protesters for any and all acts of violence at the upcoming Republican National Convention,

“Phoenix Woman” (ha ha) tips “her” hand here.  I’m on record, over and over, supporting the rights of everyone, left, right, center, up and down, to protest to their “widdle” hearts’ content. 

I am, however, pointing out that it is parties on the far fringe left that are plotting to “shut down the convention” and disrupt life in Saint Paul, in as many words.  Nobody has managed to show me a single instance of a conservative group planning – or even talking about – “shutting down” the DNC, or causing mayhem of any sort in Denver, Saint Paul, or anywhere else. 

I’m pointing that out, because some people seem to be unaware of it.

I have that right.  So far. 

while at the same time happily discussing the 2008 convention plans of himself and his buddies at “Protest Warrior“, whose members like to go around doing stupid things while pretending to be lefty protesters.

If “The Colbert Report” can do stupid things and pretend to be a conservative talk show, why can’t the right return the favor?  Again, “Phoenix Woman” tips “her” hand; most lefties  I know can get a yuk or two about PW’s dead-on parodies.  If “she” really exists, she would seem to need a good tranquilizer.

This is, by the way, the second time today I’ve seen a leftyblogger or email forum corrrespondent cite that particular piece about Protest Warrior.  Hmmmm.   

The left – no, I’ll be fair, the dogmatic fringe left – is terrified of other peoples’ freedom of speech.  It’s why they’re openly advocating the return of the “Fairness Doctrine”, it’s why they support campaign finance “reform” (and bringing conservative blogs under its aegis), and it’s why they stood outside the Highland Park District Council meeting asking people not to vote for Bill Paulos and Georgia Dietz; because they love diversity, as long as it’s the kind of diversity Alan Dershowitz decried at Harvard – people with different skin color or gender, who think exactly the same. 

So, for the record:

• Democrats – protest at the RNC all you want!  It’s a free country, and unlike “Phoenix Woman”, I believe in free speech for everyone!
• “Anarkids” – welcome to Saint Paul!  Smile for the camera!
• “Phoenix Woman” – as parody goes, you’re no “Plain Layne”.  You’re not even “Feisty Republican Whore”.  But whatever floats your boat. 

And that, as they say, is all.

Via Mingle.com, Shot in the Dark rates as…:

 (toy at Mingle² – Free Online Dating – original post at the NC-17-rated KAR)

Hm.  How about some other area blogs?

• Captain’s Quarters:  G
• Power Line: R (!) (mainly due to violence references)
• Fraters Libertas: PG (references to pain, hell and murder)
• SCSU Scholars: G (There’s just no way to make economics edgy)
• Hugh Hewitt (not local, but whatever): PG (references to death and suicide)
• Nihilist in Golf Pants:  PG13, with references to pr0n and a bomb. 
• Truth Vs. the Machine:  R!  They’re violent!
• Rambling Rhodes: R! (mostly due to, um, excretory references)
• Jay Reding: PG (a couple of suicide references)
• Bogus Doug has already copped to his PG.
• Yucky Salad with Bones:  PG (a single use of the word “Kill” is all it takes!)
• And, shockingly, Tom Swift only rated an R!

And how about the leftyblogs?

• Minnesota Monitor: R due to the troika of guns, lesbians and hell.   (Although editor Robin Marty’s “Powerliberal” ranks a “G”)
• Centrisity: G, as befits a good family guy.  With a kegerator. 
• MN Publius:  PG, with their dual obsessions over abortion and violence. 
• New Patriot:  PG.  Lesbians and death. 
• Cucking Tool:  R, with an apparent obsession with violence and death.
• Norwegianity:  A thoroughly-unsurprising NC17, due to a death fixation and enough cussing to pass a junior high boys locker room.

And non-political blogs I read?

• The Sheila Variations?  NC17.  Sex, bombs and guns, pain, and rampant homosexuality.
• Blind Cavefish:  R, due to knives, rape and pr0n. 

  Sobering.

No, not really.

Yesterday, I asked center-right bloggers to go over the Minnesota Monitor’s published body of work to find quotes seemingly sourced from interviews, and look for suspiciously-similar quotes from other sources.

An emailer who requested anonymity sent me this one, from Friday’s MinMon:

> [Fecke] today:
>
> Second District Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., did not
> respond to repeated requests for information about
> his stand on energy policy, and his House website
> does not list any policy positions on energy, oil,
> or the environment. However, Kline has voted in
> favor of opening more oil refineries and has
> repeatedly voted in favor of tax breaks for oil
> companies. He has been a strong supporter of
> drilling off-shore and in the Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, saying in a debate with Coleen
> Rowley, “This is a national security and economic
> issue. Will it solve all of our oil problems?
> Absolutely not. It’s not a long-term solution–we
> do need alternative energy solutions…but we ought
> to be taking advantage of those huge resources.”
> Kline has supported ethanol subsidies, saying, “I
> look forward to gathering bipartisan support to use
> Minnesota agricultural commodities to fuel our
> nation.” He also has supported easing environmental
> regulations on ethanol producing plants.
>
> Google returned one hit for that quote:
>
> (more…)

Someone asked me, in relation to my series  (Parts I, II and III)  on the Minnesota Monitor’s sloppy attribution and possible apparent plagiarism – “why are you pounding so hard on Jeff Fecke?”

I’ll cite Michael Corleone; “It’s not personal.  It’s business”. 

Oh, I’ll cop to having “creative differences” with Fecke; his non-Monitor blogging over the past few years has slid into a morass of Atrios-style snarking.  It irritates me, as a conservative, as a blogger, and as a reader. 

But that hardly makes Fecke unique among leftybloggers; he’s been doing it a long time, and among what passes for the mainstream of leftybloggers, he’s no worse than most, better than quite a few. 

It is business.

Part of it is that, as someone who once did aspire to be a journalist, it sticks in my craw when I see people practicing the craft shoddily – even allowing that I was no master of the craft myself.  As a conservative, it irritates me even more when that slipshod craft is practiced toward partisan ends.

But above all?

We – overtly partisan bloggers of the left and the right – are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans; of Minnesotans.  Left-leaning benefactors – from George Soros on down – are pouring a lot of money into trying to win that battle, from projects big (bankrolling attack-PR firm “Media Matters for America”, with whom the Monitor’s parent organization, the Center for Independent Media, used to share offices) to small (trying to establish online publications like the Monitor and its sister publications, Colorado Confidential and the ironically-named Iowa Independant as reputable “news” organizations).  They are – in my opinion – trying to buy credibility. 

It’s working, in many respects; the mainstream media routinely carries Media Matters hit pieces as if they were independent research; some local media give the Monitor, likewise, complete credence.  Hiring Eric Black wasn’t a bad move toward that end, one must admit.

Against that, the center-right independent alternative media has…well, not a lot of money, at least none that I’ve seen filtering down to us lil’ ol’ conservative bloggers in Minnesota. 

Just facts. 

In my three-part series, I presented a bunch of them; either shoddy attribution or plagiarism, depending on your definition of either.  I present them, unvarnished, to help the unaligned news consumer and voter gauge the credence they want to give the various news – and alternative news – options available to them.

And in the online world, facts are available like never before.

So I’d like to present this challenge to center-right bloggers in Minnesota; look over the Monitor.  Find the quotes that are presented as if they were direct quotes made to Monitor reporters – in other words, quotes that are not attributed to press releases, AP copy, or linked to news organization websites or other blogs.  And if you’re a center-right blogger in Iowa or Colorado, you can follow suit with your local Center for Independent Media affiliate as well.

Google ’em. 

See if you get any hits. 

If  you do, see if those hits predate the MinMon/ColCon/IoIndy piece in which the otherwise-unattributed quote appeared.

If so – publish it in your blog.  Let the world know.  Shine a light on the type of “credibility” that the lefty plutocrats’ pieces of silver have bought them.    

And please keep me posted.

The battle for this nation’s hearts and minds needs to be fought at a higher level.

So let’s fight it.

This is Part III of a three part series.  Part I appeared last Wednesday, and Part II was published last Friday.   

———-

Here’s the story, so far. 

In Part I, we noted that Jeff Fecke, when pressed about the attribution of a quote from MNGOP chair Ron Carey, in a story in this article about the various parties’ responses to the idea of changing the date of the Minnesota Primary, begged off.  We noted that he changed his story – changing the attribution of a quote by chairman Carey only when pressed in the comment section by Michael Brodkorb, my Northern Alliance colleague and publisher of Minnesota Demcrats Exposed, and one of Minnesota’s more notorious gadflies. 

I noted that among bloggers who aspire to credibility, it is at the very least poor form to change key mistakes – like attributions of quotes – without informing the readers. 

In Part II, I showed the reader that while Fecke, in his original piece, wrote the quotation from Ron Carey in such a manner as to indicate that he’d gotten the quote directly from the GOP chairman, that Michael Brodkorb noted in the original post’s comment section – and I independently confirmed with the MNGOP’s Mark Drake, who handles all press relations for Carey – that Fecke was never present at the interview from which this story was generated. 

I also showed a similar quote, from a May 17 piece in which Coleman threw Alberto Gonzalez under the bus, in which Fecke presented a quote from Coleman with no other attribution, in a tone that suggested Fecke had had access to the Senator.  I showed, via a source familiar with the story, that the quote took place in a phone interview at which Fecke (and the rest of the Minnesota Monitor’s staff) was not present. 

So what we have so far is a bit of bad blogging etiquette – failing to inform users that one has made corrections germane to the central facts of a story – and a slightly more serious offense, sloppy attribution.  To translate – since Fecke wasn’t present at either interview, then neither Carey nor Senator Coleman “said” anything to Fecke.  The quotes had to have come from another source.

Fecke, of course, has been called on this: as we noted, Brodkorb asked:

You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a ’90 percent probability’ of a change…”

Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?

Fecke responded:

 Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of. 

Since this is a rather important issue, I asked Fecke myself, in two separate emails last Wednesday and Friday, where those two quotes came from.  Excerpted from Friday’s email (the question differed from Wednesday’s only in the occasional conjunction):

1) To what source to you attribute the Ron Carey “90%
probability” quote?  Was it from an interview, a
statement from the Carey office, or some other source
(and if so, where?)2) To what source to you attribute the Mark Ritchie
quote in the same piece?  Again – direct interview,
statement, or a different source?3) On May 17, 2007, you published a piece
(http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1800)
on Senator Coleman‘s statement on Attorney General
Gonzalez.  The quote read “”’I don’t have confidence
in Gonzales,’ Coleman said, adding, ‘I would hope that
the attorney general understands that the department
is suffering right now, and he does the right thing,
and that is allows the president to provide new
leadership.’” To what source do you attribute this
quote – an interview, a statement, or another source? 

Questioned about this via email, Fecke had no comment.

So the question remains; from where did the quotes come?

———-

Remember; in his original story, Fecke wrote:

While the state has not officially moved the caucus date, both DFL and Minnesota GOP leaders have indicated support for the switch, with GOP chair Ron Carey reportedly saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change, and the DFL already giving preliminary approval to the plan.

When I talked with Carey’s press handler Mark Drake, I asked him – since Fecke wasn’t present when Carey said the above, how could he have gotten the quote?

Drake replied that the only place he’d seen it in print was an AP story on the subject.

The West Central Tribune covered the story, listing its source as the Associated Press. 

Here’s a paragraph about Chairman Carey, commenting on the primary date:

I like to think Minnesotans have good common sense, so it will be a shame to not have Minnesota’s voice heard as we choose the nominees for both major parties,” said state Republican Party chairman Ron Carey.

Carey said there’s a “90 percent probability” the caucus date will be accelerated. His party’s executive committee intends to decide on the issue next month.

This same report – and quote – is repeated in several other news outlets:

• The Pioneer Press’ Bill Salisbury used the quote in this story.  The story notes that “The Associated Press contributed to this article”. 
• WCCO (Channel 4) has the same quote, in a story entirely credited to the Associated Press.
• The Sioux Falls Argus Leader has, essentially, the same story, credited entirely to Associated Press wire copy. 

So we’ve seen several instances of the “90 percent probability” quote that Fecke used in a manner to indicate that he’d heard the quote – indeed, that he equivocated about in his comment, saying “Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources” in his comment-section response to Michael Brodkorb’s direct question.

Maybe this, maybe that.  But where did the quote come from?

The only source I can find for this quote – the only source that any news outlet seems to have provided, indeed, for this quote, and the only place other than the Minnesota Monitor where Ron Carey’s press handler Mark Drake has seen the quote other than Jeff Fecke’s story – is in a report from the Associated Press, furnished to its subscribers.

———-

You can find a website for everything, these days.

I took a trip out to Plagiarism.com, your one-stop source for everything related to…well, we need go no further, need we?

Plagiarism:  1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of nother) as one’s own
2. to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

The only source anyone can find for the Carey quote is the AP story on the subject. 

The AP is fairly stringent about requiring subscribers to attribute or credit the service for the material it supplies.  In none of Fecke’s stories is any wire service credited.

Which is irrelevant, since, when questioned by email, Monitor editor Robin Marty confirmed that the Monitor is not a subscriber to the Associated Press wire service. 

———-

“So what, Berg?  It’s three lousy words!  Anyone can make a mistake!”

Indeed, anyone can.  Bobbling ones’ attribution is, indeed, a rookie flub in journalism, albeit a rookie flub that can get a new reporter unceremoniously fired.  And tacking a “reportedly” on after the fact (as Fecke admitted doing) when credit to the AP (and, on a blog or online news site, a link to the source) is called for, doesn’t really fix the problem; the Associated Press is, indeed, fairly clear about requiring attribution at the very least. 

But if it’s an isolated incident, what’s the problem?

True.  If it’s an isolated incident.

———-

Let’s go back to the May 17 piece in the Monitor, in which Fecke quoted Senator Coleman.  I’ve bolded a brief passage; it will be important later in the piece:

“I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,” Coleman said, adding, “I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.”

Where did the comment come from?

Here was Senator Coleman’s office’s printed statement, taken from the Senator’s website:

May 17th, 2007 – Washington, D.C. – The cloud of suspicion continues to hover over the Attorney General’s office surrounding the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. This political debate distracts from the important work that must be done at the Justice Department. I believe Attorney General Gonzales is unable to provide the type of leadership needed to effectively run the Department The Department needs new leadership. Sadly, the reputation of Minnesota’s former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger has been dragged into this situation. Tom is a first-class prosecutor and Minnesota is grateful for his service. I consider him to be a good friend and an outstanding public servant. I have spoken to Tom many times, and he has assured me that he left of his own accord. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that he was ever targeted for possible dismissal.

So Fecke’s quote never occurs in Coleman’s printed public statement.  Where did it come from?

WCCO-TV covered the story; I’ve bolded a passage, again for emphasis:

“’I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,’ Coleman told reporters on a conference call. ‘I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.’”

The story is credited to the Associated Press.  Note that the quote – attributed to a conference call with the Senator – is identical to the quote in Fecke’s piece – except that Fecke’s piece excises (noted the bolded text in the quotes) any reference to the phone conference at which the quote was originally uttered. 

The Strib carried the story:  Brady Averill, attributing the report to a conference call (and crediting wire services in the story’s footnote) wrote:

“I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,” Coleman said in a conference call. “I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.”

The LATimes covered the story, with the same quote and attribution.

The quote took place in a conference call.  Sources familiar with the conference call confirm  that Fecke wasn’t present at the conference call.  The only difference between Fecke’s story and the AP-sourced copy? 

Fecke removed “Coleman told reporters on a conference call”, and replaced it with “Coleman said, adding”. 

How is one to interpret this, other than to make it appear Fecke is trying to make it look like he was present for the statement?

I’m open to explanations.

———-

On May 31, Fecke wrote a piece about Governor Pawlenty’s veto of a tax bill.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a tax bill Wednesday night over language that would have required the state to take inflation into account when preparing a budget, as it had before 2002.

“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldn’t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” said Pawlenty.

Note the attribution: “…said Pawlenty”.  There is no link to any other source, implying that Pawlenty “said” this to Fecke, or to an audience of which Fecke was a member. 

From the Governor’s website, in a release dated the day before Fecke’s piece:

In his veto letter regarding the tax bill, Governor Pawlenty said there were many positive items in the bill, but that legislative leaders were aware of his opposition to including a measure that would automatically incorporate inflation into the budget forecasting process.“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldn’t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” Governor Pawlenty said. “When complaints come about provisions lost as a result of this veto, I would encourage people to contact DFL leaders who chose to keep controversial policy language in rather than passing a clean bill.”  

The quote – presented in bold in both instances – features identical wording and punctuation.  Several organizations released this story, verbatim – noting prominently that it was a news release from the governor’s office.  Larry Schumacher of the St. Cloud Times filed a piece that carried the quote verbatim – in a story that credits the Associated Press. Fecke’s piece included no such attribution

———-

In November, 2006, Eric Black – then with the Strib, now ironically with the Minnesota Monitor – wrote in Strib’s “The Big Question” blog (calling the piece an “Online version of a story that appeared in shorter form in the Nov. 2, 2006 Star Tribune”) quoting then-candidate, now Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

This is Part II of a three part series.  Part I appeared this past Wednesday.

———- 

Remember the Society for Professional Journalists’ “Code of Ethics”? 

It says reporters should:

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

While the Minnesota Monitor’s self-published code of ethics is largely cribbed nearly verbatim from the SPJ’s code, they curiously edit this commandment:

* Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.

Let’s look into this.

———-

On Wednesday, I noted that when pressed by Michael Brodkorb in the Monitor thread comment section, Fecke responded by changing two words – adding the word “reportedly” to quotes by Minnesota GOP chairman Ron Carey and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (DFL).   As I noted at the end of Wednesday’s installment, it’s almost a piddling thing – a class E misdemeanor among blogging ethics violations (and yes, I’m highly  and ironically aware the term “blogging ethics” is not unanalogous to “Bolivian jurisprudence” or “JB Doubtless’ subtle shades of metaphor”).  It’s hardly the stuff that scuppers a journalistic endeavor’s credibility. 

By itself.

We’ll come back to that.

———-

In the comment thread on Monday’s post at Minnesota Monitor, Michael Brodkorb asked:

Jeff:You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a ’90 percent probability’ of a change…”

Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?

Fecke responded (with emphasis added by me):

 I’m not going to clarify every word in every story I write for you.  Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of.  Regardless, I’m not going to get sucked in to what’s clearly a case of you hyperanalyzing every word I write to see if you can find some reason that what I wrote is technically inaccurate, whether or not a reasonable person would find it so.

Now, let’s hold on right there.

“Maybe” one interviews someone, and “maybe” one gets the quote elsewhere?  Would, as Jeff alludes, a “reasonable person” find that to be a mere technicality?

No.  Indeed, the sources a journalist, or “journalist”, uses are critical to establishing the reader/viewer’s sense of the story’s credibility.  Being able to point to a source with reasonable knowledge of the details of a story is a key part of reporting.  Remember – a reporter (as opposed to a columnist) is as a general rule not supposed to be the story, or be part of the story; they are supposed to relate the story to the reader.

Part of the job is relating facts, quotes and information – with which the reader is probably unfamiliar – to the reader in a way that tells the story clearly and credibly.   One does this by telling the reader the source of the assertions in one’s story.  When the reader knows the source of something – a fact, a quote, an assertion – the can gauge the credibility of the reporter’s story-telling accordingly.  “The Senator told me in a one-on-one interview…”, “I read on a bathroom wall that…”, “according to an Associated Press report of the event…”, “…a number of left-leaning blogs report…”, and “highly-placed sources within the company and familiar with its accounting procedures”  are all ways of sourcing a quote in ways that tell a reader how much credence to lend the quotes.

 It’s one of the reasons journalists are supposed to shy away from anonymous sources (the Society of Professional Journalists and the Minnesota Monitor’s codes of ethics enshrine this principle); without knowledge of who the sources are and the baggage, grinding-axes and backstory they bring, the reader can’t get a complete picture of the story. 

Read the original piece Jeff posted before making the corrections – adding the word “reportedly” twice.   I’m going to pull out a few pieces – some quotes from Fecke’s original piece.

Jeff clearly understands the idea of sourcing; he clearly lists the source of one quote:

Leslie Sandberg, communications director for the Mike Ciresi campaign, issued a statement to Minnesota Monitor saying, “We’re going to abide by the endorsement, and our campaign looks forward to having many supporters show up whether the caucuses are held in February or March.”

See how it works?  Sandberg – Mike Hatch’s former flak – sent the Monitor a statement.  Simple, clear, and establishes the credibility of the information Fecke has just presented. 

Two more quotes:

Jess McIntosh, communications director for the Franken campaign, was equally positive. “While we can’t believe that no one has come up with a better name than `Super-Duper Tuesday,’ we’re glad Minnesotans may be able to be a part of it. And we’re excited about increased participation in the caucuses.” …The Bob Olson campaign did not immediately have an official statement, but campaign manager Eric Mitchell said that the move was “good for Minnesotans,” and that it would hopefully increase participation in the caucuses.

So how did Jeff hear from Jess McIntosh and/or Eric Mitchell?  A statement?  An interview?  A drunken confession after hours at the Lexington?

Well, no matter. 

The next quote is from Minnesota GOP chairman Ron Carey:

While the state has not officially moved the caucus date, both DFL and Minnesota GOP leaders have indicated support for the switch, with GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change, and the DFL already giving preliminary approval to the plan.

“Ron Carey saying”. 

What would a reader – that putative “reasonable person” that Fecke alluded to above – assume was the source of that quote?  “Say[ing]” implies a “verbal statement” – arguably insinuating that the reporter got this quote directly from Ron Carey, via an interview, a phone conversation, an email – some direct communication.

I contacted Ron Carey’s office on Wednesday afternoon.  “To the best of my knowledge, Ron has never talked with [Jeff] Fecke about the caucuses”, said Mark Drake, Carey’s press contact.  Furthermore, according to Drake this quotation was not part of any statement issued by anyone in Carey’s office.

Which was, of course, what Michael Brodkorb told Fecke in the original Monitor article’s comment thread:

I called the Republican Party of Minnesota this morning and spoke with the Party’s communications director, Mark Drake.  I asked Mr. Drake if Chairman Carey did an interview with Minnesota Monitor yesterday.  He replied that Chairman Carey did not do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was an interview requested.

If you didn’t interview Chairman Carey, how did you get the quote for your story?  According to numerous attendees at yesterday’s meeting of representatives of the major political parties and Secretary Ritchie, you nor a representative of Minnesota Monitor were present at the meeting.

Fecke responded:

I’ve added one word, twice.

As we noted Wednesday, that word was “reportedly”.  It changed the quote to “…with GOP chair Ron Carey reportedly saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change…”.  The change was made without telling the readers.

What it meant was that while Fecke’s original story was very vague about the actual source of Carey’s quote, the revision was clearer; Fecke had gotten the quote from some indirect source. 

Are one’s sources direct, or are they indirect?  It can make a difference in the sort of credibility a reader assigns to a reporter’s writing. 

It’s not an academic distinction.  Compare and contrast:

1. “Billy said Annie is a poopyhead”
2. “Billy reportedly said Annie is a poopyhead”

One is direct, authoritative, to-the-chase, and implies that one has gotten the information – the quote – “straight from the horse’s mouth”.  The other adds a level of plausible deniability, as if to say “I don’t know for sure, but this is what I’ve heard…”. 

The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics enjoins a reporter (emphasis added) to “Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”

So if Carey’s quote didn’t come from a face-to-face interview, and it didn’t come from a statement, where did the statement come from?

Or, as Fecke’s un-acknowledged correction put it, what is the quote’s “reported” source?  As this is published, an email to Fecke asking for clarification remains unanswered.

———-

Before we move on to Monday’s installment, let’s look at another quote.  It was in a May 17 piece by Fecke, quoting Senator Norm Coleman’s lambasting of Attorney General Gonzalez.  The quote:

“’I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,’ Coleman said, adding, ‘I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.’”

“Coleman said”.  Not “Coleman reportedly said”.  Not “Coleman said in a statement supplied to the Monitor”, or “Coleman related to an acquaintance during a drunken night of hold-em and Ten Years After videos”.  “Coleman said”.  Said to whom?  If one is a journalist, the implication is “to me”, unless you say otherwise.  (I’ve taken a screen shot, as of Wednesday, June 27 at 5PM, showing the quote in its original form). 

Did Fecke interview Senator Coleman?  A reliable source tells me the  Senator’s quote occurred during a telephone press conference, and that no Monitor staff were present at press conference conference at all.

Just to confirm, I emailed Robin Marty, the Monitor’s managing editor.  She had not been involved in setting up any interviews with the Senator.  As this is published, an email to Fecke asking for clarification remains unanswered.   

“Coleman said”.  To whom?  When?

We’ll discuss that in the next installment, Part III, Monday morning.

Yesterday, someone named my “Twenty Years Ago Today” series one of the best posts.

Of 2005.

Not sure what it means, but thanks. 

…to Jay (my college’s basketball coach, when I was there) and Mary Louise from “Casual Sundays with Mr. Curry”.  It’s #26!

This is Part I of a three-part series. 

———-

The other day, I went to the Society for Professional Journalists website. 

No, not just out of idle curiosity.  But we’ll get to that a bit later.

The SPJ has a page devoted to its ethics code.  The whole thing is worth a read; you can learn a lot about the core of the craft, as well as the things that real journalists are taught to strive for as they do their jobs.  I was one of them, once; I did radio and freelance print news, way back when.  I wasn’t very successful – I’m not doing it now! – but a couple of editors said I was good, or at least not bad, at it.   

A couple of the items from the code caught my attention.  I’m going to add emphasis here and there.  You’ll see why, eventually:

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

Hm. 

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

— Never plagiarize.

There’s also an entire section entitled “Be Accountable”, which notes that “Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other”, and tells them to:

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

And finally, there’s this last bit here; journalists should…:

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

So I guess today I’m going to be a journalist.

———-

Local center-right bloggers have been piling on Minnesota Monitor since before the last election.  The piliing-on stems, mainly, from a couple of things:  the Monitor’s funding (from the “Center for Independent Media”, a DC-based non-profit that started life sharing offices with George Soros’ “Media Matters For America” attack-PR firm), and its staff (a group of leftybloggers with long track records of ideological snarkblogging). 

The Monitor – which calls its’ staff “Citizen Journalist Fellows” rather than “guys in their mom’s basement who blog in their pajamas” and pays them a stipend for blogging on schedule and to purported journalistic standards – has attempted to class up the joint a couple of different ways:

• by publishing a “Code of Ethics” of its very own.  This code reads almost identically to the SPJ’s code – and indeed the code itself notes “The New Journalist Code of Ethics was inspired by the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.”
• Hiring an actual journalist, Eric Black.  Black needs no introduction to readers of this blog; he’s a guy with over three decades of experience in the field, and comes to the Monitor with warehouses full of credibility and gravitas. He is no Cucking Stool.

So it’s established; while the Monitor’s tone is explicitly “progressive”, they are slathering the veneer of journalism over the operation. 

Fair enough.  Let’s run with that. 

We’ll come back to that, too.

———-

Bloggers, of course, have no published code of ethics.  But among reputable bloggers – or bloggers who strive to be reputable – there are at least a few generally-accepted standards.  Plagiarism, of course, is very bad form, and can be punished mercilessly (anyone remember “The Agonist?”).  Another one – prominently label any corrections that are germane to the fundamental facts of a story – ties in closely with one of the articles in the SPJ and the Minnesota Monitor’s codes of conduct: the injunction to “Admit mistakes and correct them promptly”.  It’s why whenever a good blogger changes a fundamental fact in their story, they’ll put something at the bottom of the posting.  For example…:

“UPDATE:  Commenter BillVanNassouwe points out that Councilman Royce was convicted of shoplifting, not high treason.  I’ve changed the story above.  Sorry about the bobble”. 

It’s just good blogging manners, along with that whole “journalistic ethics” thing.

Oh, and one other thing; if you pull a quote from an online source, you link to it.  If you don’t, it is – at the very least – a gaffe.

———-

On Monday, the Monitor ran this story on its front page, under Jeff Fecke’s byline…

…well, no.  That’s not exactly what happened.  Let’s construct a timeline.

1. On Monday, the Monitor ran this story under Fecke’s byline.  It is reproduced verbatim below the fold in this posting; a PDF file made from the screen capture is available for those who want to check the veracity of my copy/paste job for themselves.
2. Michael Brodkorb – my friend, Northern Alliance Radio Network colleague, and Minnesota Democrats Exposed blogger – noticed a couple of things (which will be explained later).  He took the screen shot of the story.
3. Brodkorb then left a comment in the story’s thread at the Monitor questioning the sourcing of a few of the statements in Fecke’s article.  He asked Fecke “Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?”
4. Fecke responded – twice – and then edited the piece…
5. …which was re-published in this form.  About this time, the story fell off the blog’s front page. 

Note that at no time did the posting explictly say “some facts in this story were changed”.  No update notice was posted.  The casual reader  might never know any part of the story’s content had changed. 

And what happened?

———-

Fecke changed three words. 

• In the second paragraph, he removed a word: “Leslie Sandberg, communications director for the Mike Ciresi campaign, issued a statement to Minnesota Monitor saying, “We’re going to abide by the endorsement, and our campaign looks forward to having many supporters show up whether the caucuses are held in February or March”.  OK – good edit, removing a colloquialism that any editor would have insisted be cut. 
• In paragraph six, he added a word (flagged in blue): “GOP leaders have indicated support for the switch, with GOP chair Ron Carey reportedly saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change”
• And in paragraph seven, the same basic change: ” Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, has said his office will facilitate a change, reportedly saying, “We’re here to be helpful to the parties if the parties want to move in that direction.”

“Three friggin’ words, Berg?  This is a scandal?  Criminy”.

Of course it’s not a scandal.  Nobody’s that anal-retentive, right?  Adding two lousy words is hardly a journalistic faux-pas; it barely qualifies as a blogging flub. 

Of course, it would have been a better thing had Fecke noted in his post that these corrections, piddling as they seem, had been made.  But it’s no big deal, right?

Right.

Until you dig behind the corrections.

We’ll get to that in our next installment, Part II, on Friday.

(more…)

Rentablogger Jeff Fecke yet again bobbles his “facts”. 

In the midst of an exceedingly obtuse whack at Governor Pawlenty, Fecke – who may be the most fact-challenged “journalist” in Minnesota today – writes about Luke Hellier.  Hellier is a conservative Republican whom Pawlenty has nominated for one of the student spots on the MNSCU Board of Trustees.

Fecke:

Now, I don’t think anyone would begrudge Pawlenty picking a highly qualified conservative over a highly qualified liberal.  Pawlenty is, in fact, a Republican.  But it takes a certain Cheney-like genius to pass over a highly qualified Republican for an unqualified conservative zealot, and that’s exactly what Pawlenty appears ready to do.  Pawlenty is evidently planning to bypass the MSUSA-endorsed candidates for Luke Hellier, who has not, to date, set foot in a MnSCU classroom.  He has, however, served as political director for Michele Bachmann and interned with Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

What Fecke doesn’t deem fit to tell the readership is that the MNSCU Students Association endorsement is neither a requirement nor, for that matter, mentioned in the Open Appointment process.  King Banaian – an SCSU professor who interviewed Hellier and Adam Weigold, another candidate for the board on NARN III last weekend – relates:

Using the Open Appointments process meant he filled out a form. He reports that last week, he was interviewed for the position. Nothing on that form indicated to him that he should speak to MSUSA for screening, nor did anyone from the governor’s office when they interviewed him.

As to the part that the leftybloggers are hopping up and down and cackling like poo-flinging monkeys about – that Hellier supposedly “isn’t a student” – King actually went to the trouble of reading the Minnesota Statute:

 when the statute says (136F.02) that “Three members must be students who are enrolled at least half time in a degree, diploma, or certificate program or have graduated from an institution governed by the board within one year of the date of appointment.” (emphasis added), it clearly contemplates the applicant pool to include a student entering school. Nobody disputes this. And this would appear to be the case: The entering student would be a graduate student coming to a MnSCU school. We do not offer doctorates (yet) and master’s programs typically take two years. So it’s most likely that if grad students are contemplated to join the board, they would most likely join it at the very beginning of their enrollment in a program. Without the provision I italicized, it is unlikely that graduate students could gain the 4-year student seat on the MnSCU board.

Yet the system by which MSUSA announces the process it uses is exclusionary to those who would enter a program a few months after the announcement of a vacancy. It puts candidates like Luke at a disadvantage to insiders within MSUSA and the seven campus student governments.

If you think that’s fair — that there should be preference for current over incoming students, even if the incoming student has experience in student government from a non-MnSCU school — you’re welcome to argue that point. Please indicate how you read that into current Minnesota statute.

Those, of course, are the parts that the leftyblogs – especially Fecke and his “editors” at MNMon – don’t see fit to tell their readers; Hellier’s application is within the letter and spriit of the law, and that the MNSCU Student Association’s endorsement is really meaningless.

Why is MNMon afraid of the truth?

Brodkorb attacks Fecke’s other “point” – that Pawlenty “favors” Hellier in the first place:

One thing I don’t endorse is the misleading, dishonest, and downright nasty attacks Hellier has faced in the liberal blogosphere.  

For example:  

“A controversy regarding the appointment of a new student representative to the Board of Trustees for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is resulting in strong criticism of a candidate reportedly favored for consideration by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, June 22, 2007

Reported by who?  Who is reporting that Hellier is favored? Governor Pawlenty hasn’t announced his decision yet and I haven’t been able to find a direct or indirect quote where Governor Pawlenty said Hellier is his favored pick.  

I’ll repeat my question: Reported by who? Who is reporting that Hellier is the favorite as Minnesota Monitor reported. 

Is this just another rambling by one of the most inaccurate and sloppy bloggers in Minnesota, Jeff Fecke?  

One is bidden to wonder. 

I don’t go to MNMon for truth or accuracy, much.  My only real question is, what does Eric Black think about the people he shares a masthead with?

UPDATE:  For the same “coverage” you get on MNMon but with a depressing dose of undermedicated twitchiness, try Cucking Stool’s fevered recitation of the same talking points; same fact-challenged drivel, more self-adulatory incoherence.

In other words, just another day in the fever swamp.

Last weekend, Ed and I had a long, interesting discussion with Eric Black, formerly of the Strib, now of the Minnesota Monitor.  One of the questions – how does journalism with an established agenda differ from journalism that, at least formally, abjures a point of view?

I don’t know that we’ll get any answers right now, but it’s an interesting question to keep in mind as you read Black’s debut on the MinMon, on what is presented to us as an awkward moment for US Attorney for Minnesota, Rachel Paulose:

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, suffered through an awkward moment Tuesday when a retirement party for a long-serving prosecutor in her office turned into a thunderous ovation for several of Paulose’s severest critics. Word of the incident has buzzed through the Twin Cities federal legal community and become the latest symbol of a very rough 18 months since Paulose took over the top federal law enforcement job in Minnesota.

Let’s get some context in here.

The Minnesota US Attorney’s office, like the Attorney General’s Office, has been the province of Democrat-leaning lawyers for quite some time.  Paulose replaced Tom Heffelfinger, who in turn replaced David Lillehaug, whose political inclinations have led him to seek the DFL nomination to run for Senate. 

In other words, Paulose is  a very different person than Lillehaug or Heffelfinger, and brings a different agenda to the office than either of her predecessors.

How different?  As a layperson, it’s hard to know exactly what difference things like differing management styles and priorities make to people like US Prosecutors. 

And the story, unfortunately, sheds little light on that, relying on “conventional wisdom” about Paulose. 

Paulose has been under increasingly harsh public scrutiny about how her appointment is connected to the Bush administration’s alleged politicization of the Justice Department, and about how she has run the office.

But as Power Line – especially Scott Johnson – in their extensive coverage of the Paulose tempest-in-teapot has noted, that “public scrutiny” has been generated by a pretty narrow swathe of “public”.  Katherine Kersten also lends the reader some context missing from the mainstream (and now explicitly-biased) media’s coverage. 

But let’s go to the ceremony in question, this past Tuesday:

This account of the Tuesday incident comes from people who were present but requested anonymity.

So we have not only no idea who they were and what there motivations are, but whether their story is accurate? 

Were these “people” acting independently?  Were they detached from the Paulose “controversy”? 

We don’t know.

On Tuesday afternoon, about 70 employees of the U.S. attorney’s office and other guests gathered in a big conference room to recognize the departure of Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Sekus. Sekus is leaving to join the legal staff of UnitedHealth. Paulose was present…When it was his turn to address the group, Sekus deflected the compliments that had been sent his way and said that those who deserved the praise were the former supervisors who had resigned their posts, because their actions had required courage.

And then, the chase – as apparently described to Eric Black, by anonymous “people” who may or may not have had an axe to grind with Paulose in the first place; being anonymous, we really have no idea, and are forced to trust, or “trust” (or not) a reporter from an organization which has an agenda on this issue.

At that, the room erupted with loud, sustained applause that could not be taken as anything other than solidarity with Paulose’s internal critics and appreciation for the sacrifice they had made to protest against her– clearly a spontaneous release of the tensions within the office. 

According to a witness, the ovation was so loud that it had to represent the applause of 90 percent or more of those in the room.

“Could not be taken as anything but…” – or so say an undetermined number of anonymous witnesses about whose motivations we are utterly in the dark.

Paulose was present throughout and could not have left without calling attention to herself. One of the eyewitnesses said she had a glazed look during the ovation.

Sort of like the look I’m getting, pondering the logical gaps in this story.  Words fail me.

Fortunately, they don’t fail Joel Rosenberg, who left a comment:

Okay; you’ve now established that Paulose is unpopular with (at least) much of her staff.  I thought that was well-established, but maybe you missed the reporting on that.

What you haven’t established is why — is it because she is, as some have accused her being, overbearing?  Is it that under Heffelfinger the priorities of the office were different than hers, and that the staff is chafing under new direction?  Is it similar to what happened when Lillehaug took over the office back in the ancient days — when, I believe, you were working for the Star Tribune — and the Star Tribune (at best) glossed over how half a dozen very experienced attorneys in that partisan Democrat US Attorney’s office left in the ensuing demotions and reshufflings he engaged in when he took over?  Is this better, or worse?  Is it all of those, in some mixture, or none of the above? …Guess I’m going to have to look somewhere other than in your article, which broke the news that a bunch of lawyers cheered when another retired, and you were unable to get a comment from the US Attorney on that pressing matter.

I have an anonymous witness that says that Black’s anonymous witness had a glazed look on her face.

No, I don’t.  But I could.

Seriously, Joel’s right.  No comparison, no context, no contrast, no history.

A bunch of lawyers – people famous for hating everyone – don’t like their boss. 

Mr. Black – perhaps an anonymous tipster can give us some insights on these questions.

UPDATE:  I see Brian “St. Paul” Ward reached about the same conclusion.

As I’ve noted in many other places at many other times, I have the absolute highest regard for Michael Brodkorb. 

Now, the other day, I took mild exception to the fact that Michael posted former Senator and possible future Ventura “Independence” Party candidate Dean Barkley’s Match.com ad.  My philosophy; keep others’ personal lives out of things.  Partly because it’s the right thing to do.  Partly because as one sows, one tends to reap. 

Andy Aplikowski and Jeff Kouba agreed.  Jeff’s TvM blogmate Gary Miller doesn’t.

And when Gary disagrees, it’s worth a look:

Like Justice Scalia writing for the minority, let me inject some reality to the situation.

Politics is a full-contact sport.  The other team plays to win.  Would the Left exercise similar restraint if the roles were reversed?  You already know the answer [Gary writes, linking to the “Dump Bachmann” blog, which has lowered local political yellow journalism to a level even Jeff Fecke can look down upon with both relief and disdain].  To not use your opponent’s words against them is the political equivalent of unilateral disarmament.

There are two Mitches who”ll respond to this, of course; High Road Mitch, and Pragmatic Path Mitch. 

High Road Mitch:  I’d like to think that I – we – are better than the type of moral and ethical fruit flies that put out goo like the Dumb Bachmann blog. I certainly aspire to aim higher in life, morally and practically, than Ken “Look!  Bachmann in a Nazi Uniform” Avidor (as low a set of expectations as that sets).  Ones’ moral code is best set to one’s ideals, not one’s detractors’ level.

Pragmatic Path Mitch: Sure, politics is hardball. And as more and more people and pundits keep peeling away more and more layers of whatever “privacy” people used to have, it drives away more and more good people from ever even thinking about getting involved in politics.

I’m certainly one of them.  I think I’d be a perfectly fine elected representative at some level or another, if I were to move to a more GOP-friendly part of the Metro.  But there’s not a chance in hell that I’d do it, because…

…well, we’ll get back to that.

Minnesota’s 6th is as culturally conservative a district as you will find in these here parts. 

Pragmatic Path Mitch responds:  But that majority – who put Michele Bachmann, the  most conservative candidate in the state in a year where Republicans dropped like Air America programs – has never been in the faintest danger of electing Barkley, a guy who’s never won a a significant office in his life (if you leave out his proxy win via Ventura, his Potemkin candidate) to anything, much less the Bachmann seat. 

Folks can discern a great deal about a person’s worldview predicated on how they act when no one is looking. 

High Road Mitch responds: Discern…what?  That someone’s a divorced guy who’d like to meet someone who (as he writes in a forum that he can’t imagine someone is going to make into a public spectacle) likes some of the same things he does in private?  

A professed affinity (in a public forum) for “skinny dipping” and “erotica” is a disqualifier for many people who govern their lives by a different set of values — a majority of whom comprise the electorate in the 6th.

Pragmatic Path Mitch responds:  I doubt that anyone who signs up for Match.com actually knows it’s a public forum. 

 And even so – what’s this? “No, um, “S  E  X”, please, we’re from the northern ‘burbs“.  Criminy, if the guy likes skinnydipping with his signifcant other and reading the occasional Maxim Magazine, as long as he’s not inviting anyone’s kids along to watch or read along, what difference does it make?

Which is a better reason to eschew a Dean Barkley candidacy: “he likes to snog around in the local lagoon with his sig.other and watch a little Cinemax”, or “He’s a tax whore.  Worse, he’s a stealth tax whore”. 

For that matter, what if someone with impeccable conservative credentials came along, who happened to like a little, er, zing and zip in his or her private life? 

Where do these people think tomorrow’s conservative voters come from, anyway?

I will confess, however, to feeling dirty finding out that a fmr. U.S. Senator and trained lawyer can only muster 75-100K/year.  Now there’s your disqualifier.

Weirdest part of the whole thing?  He used his Senate head shot for his Match profile. 

I meant to write about this sometime between Saturday and yesterday; Ed and I interviewed Eric Black, formerly of the Strib and soon to be with (or around, or loosely related to) the Minnesota Monitor.  Busy as I’ve been, I sorta booted that assignment.

Jeff Kouba – currently among the best uninjured writers at Truth Vs. The Machine – caught the interview, and wrote a gratifyingly favorable recap:

In this NARN interview then, Black said he would like to build a model where left and right can talk to each other. He said he does indeed have a lefty slant, but that he invited Doug Tice to join the Big Question to have a more conservative voice. Black argued for outlets where both points of view are heard, not just one-sided places where leftys read only lefty sources, and rightys only read righty sources.

That was, indeed, an interesting branch in the discussion.  Black seems to combine a definite point of view with what seems to be a sincere jones to engage in dialog rather than merely throwing plates.  The idea interests me, as well; an actual, ongoing conversation that’s allowed to both go deep and take infinite tangents, between some people who actually are interested in conversation rather than banging rhetorical heads (or who can at least mutually bang heads without turning the entire affair into an endless, predictable pissing match) would be an interesting project. I’d be interested in such a project myself…

…after the ’08 election, at any rate. 

I’m being mostly facetious; I do relish these sorts of exercises, since they usually help me polish up my own rhetorical, logical and even ideological chops.  The unexamined prejudice, to paraphrase Augustine, isn’t worth having.

I did restrain myself from asking “how do you, a fairly distinguished and credible reporter, plan on sharing a masthead with that bunch of clowns” – but then, he did answer the question, too:

Mitch then asked about the seeming incongruity of wanting to promote conversation across the ideological divide, while joining MiniMon, which is unabashedly “progressive,” a place that doesn’t exactly do a lot to promote conservative voices.

Black said he would have his own blog and URL, and his material would be cross-posted at MiniMon. That I found interesting. This way Black can maintain some distance from MiniMon’s one-sided stance, while at the same time exercising his own voice, which may very well fit in nicely on MiniMon’s page from time to time.

It seemed to be a sensible approach.  Nice work if you can get it. 

Listen to the interview (it spans the last half of the first hour and the first half of the second hour) and decide for yourself!

Michael Brodkorb is one of the best bloggers in Minnesota today.  He’s at the leading edge of a revolution in journalism.  There is more solid, worthwhile content in a days’ worth of posting in Minnesota Democrats exposed than there is in six months on Minnesota Monitor. 

He’s also a valued colleague of mine on the Northern Alliance Radio Network, someone who’s grown into the (amateur) radio business with great panache. 

But I gotta confess – I don’t care what’s on Dean Barkley’s Match.com profile.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t much care for the “Independence” Party’s former Senate candidate (and, for a brief stretch, appointed senator after the death of Paul Wellstone and before the swearing-in of Norm Coleman) and likely future sacrificial lamb candidate in the Sixth CD against Michele Bachmann, who also served as a sort of shadow governor during the Ventura Administration.  He’s a big part of the reason the “libertarian populist” that the media fancied Ventura governed as a mushy-center-left DFL Lite goober.

But as a fellow single guy, I gotta say – let’s leave Barkley’s personal life out of the public discussion.  A person’s family, and/or his primary relationship (and especially any kids involved) – no matter what their party, platform or for that matter preferences – should be their refuge from all the BS of public life.  His search – even on a personals website – should be his own business. 

I’ve condemned leftybloggers in the past for their habit of publishing peoples’ work and home numbers and bringing hordes of drooling droogs after the families of those who disagree with them.  This isn’t quite the same – it’s a personal profile, not a home address – and ergo in no way as base and loathsome. 

But it’s high time there was a gentleman’s (and ladies’) agreement; leave peoples’ personal lives out of the public conversation, unless that life affects their ability to do the job. 

(And if Barkley’s “likes” from his ad are commentary on his fitness for office, then I guess I’m going to stick with radio).

Brodkorb’s one of the best bloggers in town.  But Mike, while I gotcher back as a rule, I’m gonna sit this one out.

In the craziness of last Friday and the weekend, I didn’t notice this bit of news – First Ringer, the Twin Cities’ blogosphere’s best political writer/analyst, of the late, lamented “First Ring” and currently with TvM, had a serious car accident last Friday. 

The Ringer was apparently released after a few hours of observation.  According to a source close to Swon, he’s receiving some ongoing medical attention.

I’d like to kick off a blogswarm of best wishes for him anyway. 

John Hinderaker at Powerline – my long-time NARN colleague – on the ironic “anti-killing” protests by Palestinians – who’ve been raised in a culture that for 40 years has been entirely formed, with the active moral connivance and financial assistance of neighboring Arab governments (who could at any time in the past four decades have absorbed the Palestinians easily into their own societies, or urged them to accept Israel’s offers of peaceful assimilation) on the premise of killing Jews and extincting Israel:

It’s a little late in the day for Palestinians to decide they’re opposed to killing. They’ve been desperately trying to sow the wind of mass murder for a couple of generations now, and if they’re finally getting concerned about reaping the whirlwind, they’ll have to look somewhere else for sympathy.

Put another way – Palestinian leadership has created a society based entirely on death (not only of Jews, mind you, but of any Palestinians who’ve espoused peace with Israel, who’ve been murdered or driven into exile).  One might be forgiven for observing that fact.

Jeff Fecke – who is to “cartooning” and “writing” what he is to “Journalism” and “Feminism”, and who is unfit to carry Hinderaker’s gym bag as a writer, thinker, or human being – assumes Hinderaker’s voice to “write“:

I really hope that a whole bunch of Palestinian children die.

Amusing side note – he constantly calls Powerline “Hacks”.

In a blogging “career” characterized by silly statements self-excused with a giggle and a wink as “snarking” (like his determination of guilt in the Duke rape case, which he excused with perhaps the most juvenile abnegation of personal responsibilty I’ve read this side of an eighth-grade TP raid, “some of us–myself included–jumped the gun in this case.  It happens.  Write enough, you’ll be wrong sometimes” – in other words, the dog ate my homework), this may be his nadir.

Anyone who can’t tell the difference between “I think a society that has trained itself to be a killing machine is ironically ill-advised to plead for peace” and “I hope the children die” needs to be sent to remedial moral grounding.

The best news?  Every dime of deep-pocketed-liberal-pressure-group money spent on Fecke’s “journalism” over at the Minnesota Monitor is a dime that won’t go toward anything remotely useful, and will give the rest of us a wealth of material. 

Moral: Carry on, moral carrion!

UPDATE:  Another NARN colleague, Michael Brodkorb at MDE, notes that Jeff has moved from petty defamation (no, not in a legal sense, yadda yadda) back to his usual turf, crummy reporting:

If you visited Minnesota Monitor in the last 24 hours, you would see a post on the front page titled “Bachmann Personal Financial Report Still Not Available.”  The post, written by the notoriously sloppy and inaccurate blogger Jeff Fecke, makes the claim that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has not filed her legally required Personal Financial Disclosure Report (PFD).   

“The Personal Financial Report for Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was still unavailable Saturday morning, one day after the House deadline for filing reports.

Bachmann was not one of the 385 representatives to file a report, nor was she one of the 52 to request an extension, according to Congressional Quarterly.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, June 16, 2007

The reality is that Bachmann’s PFD is available online.  Contrary to the reporting of Minnesota Monitor, Bachmann’s PFD report has been filed.

This is the second post that Fecke has written in the last 24 hours that will need to be corrected.  Earlier today, Fecke wrote that Congressman Tim Walz’s PFD listed two credit card debts, when Walz’s PFD actually listed three credit card debts. Fecke’s oversight did move Walz’s debt below the level of Congressman Ramstad, who Fecke claimed had the most credit card debt.  Fecke corrected the post after I pointed out his error.  

I guess when you write lots of stuff, you’re going to make mistakes – when your fundamental driving force is ideology, not accuracy. 

Or as Jeff himself might write, “Why Does Jeff Fecke Hate The Facts?”

This is what passes for a top-flight leftyblog.

Great thinkers, indeed.

(Safe for work – if you work among morons).

If intellect were gasoline, the typical top-flight leftyblog couldn’t drive a Prius around the inside of a Cheerio.

That is all.